of the débris which had already been plundered. Subsequently it was covered over and forgotten.

The statue of Gaius Caesar, though considerably over life size, is yet on a slightly smaller scale than the Augustus, the difference in height between the two-assuming the restoration of the feet of

the latter being not less than .25 m. The figure is preserved to its full height, the entire composition, save only the left arm, having been cut from a solid block of marble; this forearm, as is evident from PLATE X, was worked separately and attached by

1 Dimensions are: height 1.98 m., height with plinth 2.07 m., length of right leg .995 m., from plinth to navel 1.195 m., from navel to chin .52 m., length of neck, front, .095 m., length of face .185 m., width of face .17 m., height of forehead .05 m., length of nose .07 m., width of mouth .055 m., length of right foot .32 m.

means of an iron dowel, the stump of which has expanded through oxidation and split both the arm and the drapery about it. Save for the loss of the nose, the thumb and index finger of the right hand, and the left forearm already mentioned, the statue is in almost perfect condition; a few unimportant fragments of drapery, however, have disappeared-three or four from the roll of the chlamys at the left shoulder, and another large piece from behind the upper part of the left arm.1 The upper rim of the left ear is also slightly chipped and a shallow dent may be observed in the top of the head towards the front. Upon the upper surface of the plinth, and more particularly between the feet of the figure, there remain numerous traces of a coating of coarse stucco painted a dark red; no other unmistakable traces of pigment survived. It is to be noted, however, that the lips and eyeballs are of a distinctly lighter shade than the remainder of the flesh surfaces and hence indicate clearly that they were at one time protected by a coating of paint; the difference in tone is sufficient to be marked even in a photograph (cf. Fig. 1).

As in the other members of the group, the material here employed is a fairly good grade of Pentelic marble in which may be detected an occasional silvery vein of schist; the block was somanipulated, however, that these do not appear noticeably in a front view of the figure. The back is further marred not only by the usual roughness of finish, but also by a considerable flaw in the stone itself in the region of the left shoulder. At this point the back is asymmetric, the left side being much flattened and roughened.

The statue is a nude male figure in heroic pose, the light chlamys being carried on the left arm and shoulder in the manner seen in the Hermes of Atalante. The weight of the figure is supported on the right leg, while the left is flexed at the knee and advanced.

1 This is shown by a slight break in the drapery above, the rough working of the surface of the skin, and an "attachment boss" on the upper arm.

2 On the front of the plinth between the feet appears a cutting for one half of a strong hook clamp, by means of which the plinth was made fast in its basis.

3 Cf. Dickins, Hellenistic Sculpture, fig. 41 and p. 56. The author remarks: "The work has been referred back to a Lysippic original, but it seems more likely that it is an Attic adaptation of the eclectic school now (i.e., middle of third century B.C.) springing into existence." The type is preserved for us in a number of replicas (cf. Gazette Arch. II, 1876, p. 84, notes 1 and 2) and seems to have been popular and widespread in the late Hellenistic period. The work itself is of Pentelic marble and slightly over life size.

1

The left arm is bent at the elbow and the forearm is extended supporting the folds of the chlamys which fall along the thigh and leg and conceal the upper portion of the heavy supporting tree trunk which rises from the plinth behind the left heel. The right arm hangs naturally at the side with the hand half closed and the thumb forward, and seems to have held an attribute of some sort. This is indicated by a small hole drilled into the palm of the hand opposite the space between the tips of the third and fourth fingers. In consideration of the type of the figure I judge that the attribute could only have been a caduceus, of bronze and probably gilded. Many analogies may be quoted for the pose and the draping of the chlamys, most of which serve to indicate that we have here the usual "Hermes type" so characteristic of Hellenistic and Roman sculpture,' a type repeated with almost infinite variation in the later imperial portraiture. The head is turned to the right, the gaze level and direct, and though not of great intensity the general expression may be characterized as that of alertness in repose; a slight Augustan frown is noticeable between the eyes. Like the other members of the Corinthian group, the statue gives no evidence of having been exposed to the weather, and must have stood under cover, either against a wall or within a niche.

The technique seems much like that of the portraits already discussed. The drill was used sparingly on the flesh surfaces, but much more freely in the undercutting of the drapery which is nevertheless most plastically and skilfully rendered, even to the indication of the leaden draping-weights at the lower edges.3 Slight traces of drilling are apparent at the inner corner of each eye and at the corners of the mouth, the parting of the lips being rendered by carrying the "drill line" across from corner to corner (cf. Fig. 2). Elsewhere on the body the drill was used only in the hair about the pubes, where is to be noted a most unusual and archaic technique in that the hair is done in round "snail-shell"

1 In this connection it is interesting to note the passage of Athenaeus which tells us that Alexander liked to appear as Hermes (Athen. XII, p. 537E).

2 Cf., for example, Commodus as Mercury in the Mantua museum, Labus, Museo di Mantova, III, pl. VI, p. 34 f.; Augustus as Mercury in the Museum of Rennes, Gazette Arch. I, 1875, pl. 36, p. 135; Tiberius as Mercury in the Naples museum Reinach, Rep. de la Sculp. Grec. et Rom. I, p. 568, pl. 925, No. 2351, also Bernoulli, Röm. Ikon., II, 1, p. 172, No. 15; Nero as Mercury in the Glyptothek, Munich, Reinach, op. cit. I, p. 577, pl. 938, No. 2397, also Bernoulli, op. cit. II, 1, p. 399, and III, p. 57, etc., etc.

Cf. the Hermes of Praxiteles for a similar detail.

curls, the centre of each being indicated by a distinct circular boring. The flesh surfaces are smoothly worked but unpolished, while the face and neck seem rather more carefully finished than the rest of the body. The modelling is good but generally lacking in fluidity and warmth, and although quite correct it appears somewhat hard and academic. The modelling of the face, though

generalized, possesses, nevertheless, a degree of subtlety which shows up effectively when viewed in the proper light; yet we must admit that the forms are rather cold and lacking in detail, a trait characteristic of the period to which the work clearly belongs. The Roman age is further revealed by the careless treatment of the feet, which are broad, flat, poorly modelled, and out of proportion. These imperfections, though scarcely pardonable, are to be explained by the fact that the statue almost certainly occu

pied a position well above the eye of the spectator and was intended to be viewed only from the front.

The hair lies close to the scalp after the Polyclitan fashion, and is divided all over its surface into flat waving tresses which seem as if drawn on it but never stand out separately in relief; the locks across the forehead are particularly stiff and careful in their arrangement and, as in the case of the Augustus and the Tiberius, seem to follow a fixed iconographic scheme. Upon the top and back of the head the hair is very summarily treated. The eyes are fairly wide, with gaze directed very slightly downward and well to the right (cf. Fig. 2); the upper lids overlap markedly at the outer corners, and both the upper and lower are rendered sharply and in high relief, which in the former amounts almost to undercutting. These details of the hair and eyes just mentioned derive undoubtedly from a bronze technique. The eyeballs, though set well back in their sockets, are rounded and fairly prominent, the latter characteristic being accentuated by their unusual whiteness (cf. Figs. 1 and 2) due to the protecting layer of paint with which they were once coated. The brows are slightly arched and marked by a distinct ridge dividing them from the foreheadagain reminiscent of bronze. The frown between the eyes, together with the broad forehead and a certain level gaze, gives the face its strongest resemblance to the Augustan type.

Attention must finally be called to a remarkable point of technique which has until recently received but scant attention from writers on ancient sculpture. I refer to indications which tend to prove that mechanical "pointing devices" were used in the classic period, a subject upon which the statue under discussion serves to throw a ray of light. On the rear of the left arm, where the 1 Cf. Gardner, Handbook of Greek Sculpture (edit. 1915), pp. 32–35, "In fact we can see such puntelli upon several unfinished works of sculpture. But these mostly belong to Hellenistic or Roman times; and even on works of this later period they are not always to be seen, while on earlier monuments they seem to be almost, if not entirely, unknown. . . . In later times, when genius and inspiration were less frequent, and art was more a matter of academic study, we find that the use of finished clay models became as universal as it is at the present day, and that their form was transferred to the marble by the same mechanical process that is now in use. The puntelli, however, seem, from their comparatively limited number, to have been rather a help to the sculptor than a purely mechanical means of producing a marble facsimile of the clay model." For a further discussion of this subject, with full references, cf. Daremberg et Saglio, Dict. des Antiq. Gr. et Rom, s.v. sculptura, V. La confection de la statue.-La maquette. The most interesting