and lend them his aid, an invitation he was only too ready to accept. Entering Thessaly, he went as far south as Thermopylæ, but was there met by an Athenian force and prevented from proceeding farther. Returning to Thrace, and continuing his conquests in that direction, he in B.C. 347 took the Chalcidian town of Olynthus, and soon after the whole Chalcidian peninsula fell into his hands. Though opposed by a party at Athens, led by the orator Demosthenes, he advanced almost unchecked, accomplishing as much by bribery and deception as by force of arms. He received at the hands of the Amphictyons the two votes in their assembly to which the Phocians had been entitled, but of which they had been deprived, and also a share in the presidency of the Pythian Games. Being once more invited into Greece, this time by the Amphictyons to take part against the Locrians, he advanced into Bootia, and was met by the Boeotians and Athenians at Charonea B.C. 338; this battle was a victory for Philip and the death-knell of Grecian independence. A congress of Greek States, held at Corinth in the next year, recognized Macedonian supremacy in Greece, and appointed Philip commander-in-chief of the Greek forces. Philip immediately began preparations for invading Persia, but was assassinated in B.C. 336, and his son, Alexander, twenty years of age, succeeded him.

At the death of Philip a general rising against the power of Macedonia was threatened, but it was quickly suppressed by the energy of the new King. Having made an example of Thebes, which he razed to the ground, he set out in B.C. 334 on his famous invasion of Persia. The conquests of Alexander in the East extended Grecian influence and Grecian civilization and language throughout a great part of Asia. He founded Alexandria, which, under the Greek dynasty of the Ptolemies, soon rose to be the greatest centre of civilization in the world. Alexander died at Babylon in B.C. 323, and his empire was divided among his generals. Among those who shared in this partition of power were Perdiccas, Antipater, Crateras, Antigonus, Eumenes, Ptolemy Lagi, Lysimachus, Polysperchon, Cassander, Seleucus, and Demetrius Poliorcetes. Of the States established by the successors of Alexander, the so-called Diadochi, the most important were the Greek King dom of Egypt (the realm of the Ptolemies) and the Kingdom of Syria (the realm of the Seleucide). Later the Kingdom of Pontus rose to great power under the Greek dynasty. An effort was made by Greece to throw off the yoke of Macedonia, and the war, called the Lamian War, was ended by the victory of Antipater. Regent of Macedonia, at Crannon in B.C. 322. In the wars of the successors of Alexander, Greece was often the battlefield of the contending forces. Two attempts were made in this period at federation. The Achæan League was formed about B.C. 280, and included Athens and other cities of Northern Greece, and Corinth, as well as much of the Peloponnesus. The abilities and patriotism of Aratus and Philopomen (the latter styled the 'last of the Greeks') shed lustre upon this confederacy, which for many years maintained the cause of Grecian independence against foreign conquerors. The Etolian League was formed in Central Greece, but was less famous than the Achæan. In B.C. 197 Philip V. of Macedon was defeated at Cynocephala by the Romans, and in B.C. 196 the freedom of Greece was proclaimed by the

victorious general Flamininus at Corinth. In B.C. 168, by the battle of Pydna, and in B.C. 146, with the destruction of Corinth by the Roman general Mummius, Greece passed completely into the hands of the Romans, who made of it a province, under the name of Achaia.

FOREIGN RULE. From the completion of the Roman conquest by the capture of Corinth in B.C. 146 until the outbreak of the Mithridatic wars in B.C. 88 Greece enjoyed a just and wise administration under the Romans, and the country prospered. The nationalist revolt which followed the first successes of Mithridates against the Romans changed these conditions. Athens was sacked by the forces of Sulla in B.C. 86, and Thebes was reduced in the following year. The hand of Rome fell heavily upon the rebellious cities, and that decline began from which the country never recovered. Under the emperors Greece enjoyed renewed tranquillity, its supremacy in thought and letters was recognized, and there was a partial return to prosperity. The Emperor Hadrian and Atticus Herodes (q.v.), the friend of the Antonine emperors, did much to restore the splendor of the ancient civilization. In the middle of the third century A.D. this condition was disturbed by the Gothic hordes, which overran the peninsula, captured Athens, and laid waste the cities of Argos, Corinth, and Sparta. Christianity, after the third century, spread rapidly in Greece in spite of the opposition it had to meet from the philosophers of Athens, which to the end remained the centre of pagan culture. When the world-empire founded by the Romans fell to pieces before the attacks of the northern barbarians, the eastern half, which embraced all that was Greek, continued its existence as the Byzantine or Greek Empire. But this Greek Empire, with its seat at Constantinople, which outlived the Western Empire by a thousand years, until it was extinguished by the Turks in 1453, was the mixed Oriental Greece, not that classic Hellas that had been the bulwark of the Western world. (See BYZANTINE EMPIRE.) The life of the true Greece was obscured for several centuries, only appearing as the peninsula became an object of conquest or an arena of strife. Before the final division of the Roman Empire, the rulers of Rome attempted to Romanize the East by introducing into the language of the period a mingling of Latin and Greek, known as Romaic; but they failed to overcome the strong race characteristics of the people. From the sixth to the eighth century, Slavic peoples from the north crowded into the Balkan Peninsula, occupying almost exclusively the ancient Peloponnesus. The invaders were merged to some extent with the ancient race, and remained in occupancy of Illyria and Thrace, producing a mixture of nationalities which constitutes at the present day one of the chief elements of confusion in the puzzling problems of the Balkan Peninsula. The ambition of the Frankish leaders of the Fourth Crusade and the greed of Venice interrupted the continuity of Byzantine rule, establishing the short-lived Latin Empire of the East (1204-1261), and dividing the Hellenic Peninsula into a number of feudal fiefs, of which the Duchy of Athens was the most prominent and the longest lived. Held for a century (1205-1308) by the Frankish House of De la Roche, then for a few years by that of Brienne, the duchy became after the conquest by the Catalan Grand Company (q.v.), in 1311, an

appanage of the Kingdom of Aragon. In 1385 it was acquired by the Florentine family of Acciajuoli, under whom it remained until the Turkish conquest in 1456. During this period the Court of Athens was one of the most brilliant of the feudal courts of Europe. Soon after the capture of Constantinople in 1453, Mohammed II. turned his attention to the Morea and Attica, and by 1460 they had been completely subjugated. The Turkish conquest, sending thousands of Greeks into exile, spread the intellectual influence of the race through the West, and promoted the revival of learning in Europe. (See RENAIS SANCE.) The Venetians still held many places in the Grecian islands, and defended them obstinately in an almost constant series of wars until 1718; but gradually the islands, like the mainland, fell into the hands of the Turks. The great naval battle of Lepanto (Naupactus), won by the allied Papal, Spanish, and Venetian, fleets, October 7, 1571, gave the Christian powers a temporary advantage which they failed to follow up. Venice lost Crete in 1669, but in 1684 the Venetian Admiral Morosini opened a vigorous campaign, which resulted in 1687 in the conquest of the Morea and of Attica. During the siege of Athens (1687) the Parthenon was ruined by the Venetian bombardment. The peace of Carlowitz in 1699 left the Morea alone in the possession of Venice; and in 1715 this was again conquered by the Turks, after a feeble defense, and by the Peace of Passarowitz (1718) the Ottoman Empire remained in full possession of Greece. The country was administered in the usual Turkish fashion. It was divided into pashalics, within which the pashas ruled autocratically, being held accountable only for a certain amount of revenue, which they wrung from the unfortunate people. The same was true of officials of lesser rank, beys and agas, within the districts intrusted to them. Prostrated under an alien and irresponsible tyranny, the country lapsed into anarchy and poverty. All over Greece many of the more vigorous and independent of the people adopted the wild, free life of klephts or brig ands, having their lairs in the mountains, and waging unceasing warfare against the Turks. Among them the spirit of independence was kept alive, although with a total disregard for author ity. Terrible as was the rule of the Turks, they allowed two institutions to exist which acted as powerful forces toward maintaining intact the nationality of the Greeks. One was the Greek Church, the other the system of local self-govern ment. In the eighteenth century Russia sought to extend a helping hand to the Greeks, her coreligionists, but little of moment was achieved. Large numbers of Greeks found a field for their activity in commerce and navigation, and this preserved the national life from stagnation and kept the people in touch with the outside world. Those who resided in foreign countries under freer governments, many of whom acquired wealth and influence, remained devoted to the fatherland and fostered the spirit of independence by helping to establish national institutions of learning. At the close of the eighteenth century the trade of the ports of Greece and of the Grecian islands assumed great proportions, and the merchant marine became a school whence was to issue a large array of naval heroes.

THE WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE. At the beginning of the nineteenth century the Greeks everywhere

began to plan for a national revival, the chief agent being a great secret association, the Hetaria, which extended wherever in the world Greeks were to be found loyal to the national cause. The way for such a movement had been prepared by the labors of the patriot scholar Coray (q.v.), who had devoted himself to the task of restoring the classic language of ancient Hellas, with the conscious purpose of effecting thereby a resurrection also of the old national spirit. In March. 1821, at Jassy, the capital of Moldavia, Alexander Ypsilanti, head of the Hetaria, raised the standard of revolt, proclaiming the independence of the Greek people, and the ten years' struggle was opened. Ypsilanti's daring deed soon ended in disaster, but it was the signal for a great uprising, which at once began in the Morea. The Porte sought to check the revolt by wholesale massacres and executions, but the rebellion grew in spite of constant defeat. The people revived the memories of the ancient Greeks by their heroic deeds, on land and sea, under the lead of such men as Germanos, Kolokotronis, Mavromichalis, Demetrius, Ypsilanti, Mavrokordatos, Bozzaris, Odysseus, Miaulis, and Kanaris. Tripolitza, in the Morea, the capital of that pashalic, was captured by the Greeks, October 17, 1821. At Epidaurus in January, 1822, the first National Assembly framed a constitution. In March occurred the terrible massacres perpetrated by the Turks on the island of Scio (Chios), when about 25,000 people were slain within a month, and thousands more were sold into slavery. In spite of these atrocities, however, the members of the Holy Alliance, at the Congress of Verona in the last months of 1822, called upon the rebellious Greeks to return to their obedience. Among the deeds of the patriots in the year 1822 was the destruction of the Turkish Admiral's ship at Chios (night of June 18-19), and of another vessel of the line (in November) by the fireships of Kanaris, and the victories of Kolokotronis over the invading Turkish army in the Morea. In August, 1823, occurred the brilliant exploit of Marco Bozzaris (q.v.) at Karpenisi near Missolonghi. Funds to aid the patriots were obtainable only on exorbitant terms, but the generous contributions of wealthy Greeks and of sympathetic foreigners (see PHILHELLENES) maintained the long struggle against fearful odds. Among those who stirred up Europe in the cause of Greek independence was Byron. Sultan at last called in Mehemet Ali (q.v.), who had already made a sinister reputation in Egypt, to suppress the rebellion. An Egyptian army of 17,000 men under Ibrahim Pasha landed in the Morea in February (1825). Navarino was taken in May, Tripolitza in June, and within half a year the entire peninsula had been subjugated. In April. 1826, the Turks took Missolonghi, after an heroic defense on the part of the Greeks, and on August 15th Athens was taken by storm. The misfortunes of the Greeks during this period of the war were due in great measure to the dissensions between the Constitutional Party, headed by Mayrokordatos and Kunduriotis, and the supporters of a military dietatorship, of whom the most prominent were Kolokotronis and Ypsilanti. A temporary reconciliation between the two parties was effected in 1827, and in March the National Assembly at Trozen amended the Constitution so as to provide for a single executive. Count Capo d'Istria (q.v.) was chosen Presi

The

dent, and assumed the government at the beginning of 1828. Party quarrels, however, broke out again almost immediately. On June 5, 1827, the Greek garrison in the Acropolis of Athens, which had held out after the lower town was taken, capitulated. The Greek cause seemed in a most deplorable condition; but the probable results of Turkish success in strengthening the power of Mehemet Ali in Egypt stirred the European cabinets at last to intervention. The London protocol of July 6, 1827, signed by England, France, and Russia, called for an armistice and intervention. The Porte, still supported by Austria, refusing to hear from the Powers on the subject, the allies strengthened their naval forces in the Mediterranean. The defiant action of Ibrahim Pasha precipitated the desperate battle in the Bay of Navarino, October 20th, in which the combined Egyptian and Turkish fleet was practically destroyed by a much lighter force. Soon after a French force landed in the Morea, and Ibrahim Pasha found himself compelled to withdraw his army. The onslaught made by Russia upon the Ottoman Empire in 1828-29 finally forced the Porte to accept a settlement proposed by the Powers. In the Treaty of Adrianople (q.v.) between Turkey and Russia, September 14, 1829, the Porte pledged its consent to whatever arrangements the Powers might conclude in respect to Greece. The London Protocol of the Great Powers, in February, 1830, declared Greece an independent kingdom, and was accepted by the Porte. In that country meanwhile the cessation of war had been followed by a period of great unrest. Great dissatisfaction was felt with the course adopted by Capo d'Istria in neglecting to call the popular assembly, and in ruling after the manner of a dictator. Capo d'Istria was assassinated October 9, 1831, in Nauplia, and Greece was for a short time ruled by a regency of seven men. On May 7, 1832, after long negotiations with various foreign princes, Otho, the second son of King Louis I. of Bavaria, was made King by the Powers, and landed in Greece early in the following year. The reorganization of the country was undertaken under a Bavarian regency, the King being only seventeen years of age. A loan of 60,000,000 francs was guaranteed by the Powers. King Otho came of age in 1835, and in the same year the seat of government was transferred from Nauplia to Athens.

RECENT HISTORY. The Greeks from their earliest history have been devoted to constitutional government and to the principle of popular participation in the political life of the State. This was denied to them under the Bavarian rule, constitutions being frowned upon by the Continental Powers at that time. Thus the Government was out of touch with the people, and the discontent was increased by the faulty administration of the finances, which burdened the country with unprofitable taxation. England and France urged upon King Otho the advisability of giving the people a constitution, but he delayed until the revolution was already under way. This broke out in a bloodless way at Athens, September 15, 1843, and the King was compelled to yield. The new Constitution, however, did not restore the local self-government so dear to the Greek, nor satisfy the aspirations of the people. At the opening of the war between Russia and Turkey in 1853 Greece prepared to invade Turkey, hoping that the time had come to recover the Hellenic heritage. To

prevent any alliance between Greece and Russia, French and English forces landed at the Piræus in 1854, and remained in occupation until 1857. This incident increased the national discontent with the King and his Government. The popular feeling, stimulated by the example of a regenerated Italy, took revolutionary form in 1862. In February the garrison at Nauplia revolted, and that of Athens followed in October. Otho was deposed, and, failing to obtain the support of the Powers, was compelled to leave the country. The choice for a new sovereign finally fell upon the second son of the King of Denmark, who became King of Greece as George I. The choice being acceptable to England, that country ceded to the new monarch the seven Ionian Islands, which since 1815 had constituted a republic under a British protectorate. This was an important accession, as the islands were prosperous and had constantly desired reunion with Greece. By the Constitution of 1864 the legislative functions of government were vested in the Boulé, comprising a single chamber, elected by universal suffrage for a term of four years. So demoralizing had been the experience of the country that brigandage was not suppressed until 1870. Perhaps the greatest national aim of the constitutional kingdom has been the restoration of the historic Hellas; and the dissatisfaction of the people with existing territorial conditions has been a continual disturbing element in the Eastern situation. The Congress of Berlin (q.v.) in 1878 recommended a readjustment of the unfair and unscientific northern boundary; but Turkey refused to make the concessions demanded, and war between the two countries seemed inevitable. Finally, after protracted negotiations, the Powers in 1881 accepted the compromise offered by the Porte, giving Greece all Thessaly south of the northern watershed of the Salambria, including Larissa and Trikala, and in Epirus running the boundary along the Arta River, leaving Arta to Greece. Greece was not satisfied with this settlement, but accepted it under protest as the best arrangement possible at the time. The island of Crete was regarded by the Greeks as a natural Hellenic possession, and the desire for its union with the kingdom was intensified by sympathy for the Cretans under Turkish misrule. The bloody conflict between the Christians and Mohammedans that broke out in Crete in 1896 led Greece to make an attempt to annex the island. This action brought about the interference of the Powers, who decreed the autonomy of Crete and proceeded to compel Greece to withdraw her forces.

The Cretan disturbances gave the war party in Greece an opportunity to fan the embers of national passion into life, and to bring on a war with Turkey, in the hope of arousing Macedonia to revolt, and winning much of the desired territory on the north. Greece was wholly unprepared for such a conflict. Her army was ill organized, poorly officered, and insufficiently supplied with hospitals and commissariat, while the Turkish armies were in a comparatively efficient condition. Yet, in spite of all restraining counsel, and without any countenance from the Powers, without whose support such contest was destined to be futile, the war party precipitated the struggle. Greek irregulars opened the fighting in Macedonia early in April, 1897. They were probably incited by persons high

in authority, although the regular Greek officers on the frontier and the Government disclaimed their acts. On the 17th of April the Porte declared war, charging Greece with being the aggressor. The campaign of thirty-one days that ensued was so inefficiently managed on the Greek side that it would have been ludicrous had it not been so pathetic. The Turks forced one position after another, the Greeks, under the incapable command of Prince Constantine, the heir to the throne, showing an unsteadiness in marked contrast to the discipline and determination of the Turks. The latter threw back the advanced line of the Greeks, who at first had a distinct strategic advantage, invaded Thessaly on April 21st, and occupied Larissa on the 25th, while the Greek army, now a panicstricken mob, was in headlong flight. Heavy fighting occurred at Velestino April 25th, and at Fersala May 5th. The plain of Thessaly was occupied by the forces of Edhem Pasha, and in the third week of May the Turks held the line of the Orthrys Mountains, and threatened Central Greece. Their advance was stopped only when Russia peremptorily demanded an armistice. This was concluded on May 18th. Preliminaries of peace were signed September 18th, and

on December 4th the definitive treaty was signed at Constantinople. Greece was required to pay an indemnity to Turkey amounting to $18,000,000, the payment to be supervised by an international commission of the mediating Powers, which also undertook to rectify the frontier. In 1898 the Powers compelled Turkey to withdraw her forces from Crete, and Prince George of Greece was installed as Governor of the now au. tonomous island. In Macedonia (q.v.) the Greek government has exerted itself to check the ambi

tions of the Bulgarian element of the population. Greek guerilla bands, with the secret support of the authorities, have engaged in the internecine warfare which has long been the curse of the Macedonian vilayets. The same conflict led to hostile feeling between Greece and Rumania. Severe measures were taken by the respective governments against subjects of the other and in 1906 diplomatic relations were severed.

BIBLIOGRAPHY. Consult the histories of Grote, Curtius, Duncker, Thirlwall, Abbott, Holm, Busolt, and Beloch; also Freeman, History of Federal Government in Greece (London, 1893); Droysen, Geschichte des Hellenismus (Gotha, 1877-78);

Kaerst, Geschichte des hellenistischen Zeitalters, vol. i. (Leipzig, 1901); Cox, History of Greece (London, 1874); id., The Athenian Empire (ib., 1877), and The Greeks and Persians (ib., 1876).

The standard history of Greece from B.C. 146 to A.D. 1864 is that of George Finlay, a Scotchman, who took part in the War for Independence, and spent much of his life in Greece (new ed., 7 vols., Oxford, 1877). The division of the subject in Finlay's volumes is a convenient guide to the large periods of modern Greek history: I. Greece under the Romans, B.C. 146-A.D. 716; II. The Byzantine Empire. 716-1057; III. Byzantine and Greek Empires, 1057-1453; IV. Medieval Greece and Empire of Trebizond, 1204-1461; V. Under Ottoman and Venetian domination, 1453-1821; VI. Greek revolution, 1821-27; VII. Establishment of the Greek Kingdom, 1827-64. Consult also: Tennent, The History of Modern Greece, B.C. 146 to A.D. 1820 (London, 1830, 1845); Guerber, The Story of the Greeks (New York, 1898); Jebb,

Modern Greece, two lectures with papers on the progress of Greece (London, 1880); Crousse, La péninsule gréco-slave, son passé, son présent et son avenir (Brussels, 1876); Lavisse and Rambaud, Histoire générale (12 vols., Paris, 18931900). There are also several histories in Greek, among them being those of Trikupis (London, 1860), Papparigopulos (London, 1886), and Lambros (Oxford, 1886). On special periods or phases of the subject the following deserve notice: Phillips, The Greek War of Independence 1821-33 (London, 1897); Isambert, L'indépendance grecque et l'Europe (Paris, 1900); Bérard, La Turquie et l'hellénisme contemporain (Paris, 1893); id., Les affaires de Crète (Paris, 1900); Bickford-Smith, Greece Under King George (London, 1893); and The Græco-Turkish War of 1897, from Official Sources by a German Staff Officer, translation (London, 1898).

GREEK ART. In this article the subject will be considered as it manifests itself in sculpture and architecture. (For a general view of Greek artistic activity, see ARCHEOLOGY; for Greek pottery, see POTTERY and VASES; and for Greek their works are the subjects of separate articles. painting, see PAINTING.) The great artists and

Pre-Mycenaean and Mycenaan periods need not be treated here, as its influence is chiefly felt

PREHISTORIC ART IN GREECE. The art of the

in other fields than those of architecture and

sculpture, and its Hellenic character is still a There is no connection subject of discussion. traceable between the reliefs of Mycena and Crete and the rude beginnings of Hellenic sculpture in the seventh century B.C. In building the case is somewhat different, and though the gap is still a wide one, there can be little doubt that

tures.

the Doric temple is derived from the Mycenæan house, at least in some of its characteristic feaThe essential element of these early dwellings is the large rectangular room, to which entrance is gained through a vestibule or portico formed by prolongation of the side walls, and often partially closed in front by pilasters or columns. The plan is therefore that of a temple in antis. The materials used were stone for wood for the roof columns and facings of the the foundations, crude brick for the walls, and ends of the walls, where they were most exposed. earth, as is common in the East to-day. Between The roofs were probably flat, and covered with liest extant Doric temple, the Heraum at Olymthe decline of the Mycenaean period and the earpia, is a gap of some centuries, and in that time house into a dwelling for the god has been comthe adaptation or transformation of the human pleted.

ARCHITECTURE: THE TEMPLE. In view of the evidence afforded by the Hereum and the later but very similar temple at Thermon, in Etolia, it seems reasonable to accept the theory that the Doric style is a transformation into stone of an original wooden architecture, the development of a purely stone construction, or the stone reproduction of an original combination of wood and sun-dried brick. The lighter Ionic forms, however, seem to point to an origin in a purely wooden construction. As both orders are developed during the early period of Greek art, though both reached their culmination only in the fifth century, it will be convenient at this point to describe briefly the usual forms of the Greek

temple and the special characteristics of the great orders.

The simplest form of the temple is that already described, where the side walls of the main room (cella or naos) are prolonged to form a vestibule (pronaos). The walls end in pilasters (anta), between which are columns, usually two. Sometimes a similar vestibule is constructed in the rear, forming a double temple in antis. If a row of columns is placed in front of the cella or pronaos, the temple is prostyle; if this row is repeated at the rear, amphiprostyle. A temple surrounded by a row of columns is peripteral; by a double row, dipteral; and the refinements of the later systematizing architects introduced further elaborations of nomenclature. The simpler forms were confined to very small buildings; all Greek temples of any size are peripteral. A further classification depends upon the number of columns across the front. Those with four columns are called tetrastyle; with six, hexastyle; with eight, octostyle; with ten, decastyle; and with twelve, dodecastyle. It should be observed that with rare exceptions the number of columns is always even, so that no column may block the approach to the door. The plan of the temple does not depend upon the order except in one point: In an Ionic temple two of the columns of the peripteros at each end are in the prolongation of the side walls, while in the Doric temple no such regularity is observed. Owing to its lighter forms, the Ionic order was a favorite in small buildings.

Passing to the details of the building, we have first the stereobate or foundation, preferably of native rock, but often formed by building walls under those parts of the temple which required the most support, and filling the spaces between with earth and clay. On or around these foundations was erected the crepidoma, a series of steps, usually three in the later temples. The upper step is the stylobate, and on this the columns of the peripteros rest. In some cases, as in the Parthenon, another step leads to a higher platform on which the cella is built. It is in the column and the entablature which the column sustains that the distinctive character of the orders is manifested. (See COLUMN: ENTABLATURE.) They are distinguished as Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian orders. (See these titles.) Of their history little can be said. The first two were coëxistent in the earliest period, and there was an increasing tendency to use the Ionic order, though not to the exclusion of the Doric. Though Greek architecture reached its highest development in the temple, it also manifested itself in other monuments. (See PROPYLEA; STOA.) In all of these excepting the theatre (q.v.) the column was the principal architectural feature.

SCULPTURE: TECHNIQUE. Though wood and clay were sometimes used in sculpture, the common materials were stone and metal. In the early days of sculpture in stone the softer varieties of limestone, especially the so-called poros, were frequently employed because of the comparative ease of working. Later the harder marbles were employed, especially the fine white marble of Paros, and Mount Pentelicon, in Attica. The sculptor seems in general to have worked without mechanical copying of a model. blocking out the statue a pointed instrument, either a punch or hammer, was employed, and

For

the finer details were worked out with chisels of various shapes. In some of the earlier statues the deep folds of drapery seem to have been cut out by the saw; but later the borer was used, especially after the time of Callimachus (q.v.), who is credited with its invention by Pausanias, though it was almost certainly in use at an earlier date. Frequently the head and other parts of the body were carved separately, and of better material. In bronze the earliest works are in hammered metal, with engraved details; but at an early date casting was introduced, and thus the production of larger pieces became possible. Heretofore such statues had been produced by plating on wood, or riveting together metal plates. Solid casting was obviously too wasteful, and we early find examples of hollow casting, though the exact method of preparing the mold and core is uncertain. In later times the Greek artists used the cire perdue process, and it is possible this was in use before the end of the fifth century. Bronze was always the favorite material for honorary statues, and the artists in bronze seem to have enjoyed a higher esteem than their brethren who worked in stone.

USE OF COLOR. The plain white of the marble was too dazzling and monotonous for Greek taste; moreover, when poorer materials were used the stone often required color or stucco to conceal its imperfections. Our knowledge as to the details of the coloring of the temple is not very complete, though it has been much enlarged by the careful attention paid to the subject in recent excavations. In the Doric building the triglyphs seem to have been regularly blue; the metopes vary-at Olympia they were either blue or brown, with the reliefs in contrasting colors, while elsewhere red was also used. The smaller architectural members, such as mutules, regulæ, and gutte, were also colored; but the walls, architrave, and columns, except possibly the neck, and sometimes the echinus, were plain. In the Ionic order color seems to have been used on the capital, but there is little knowledge of details.

Color

In sculpture the question has been much discussed. It is clearly impossible to lay down general rules, for the practice varied with the time, place, material, and technique. What holds of the relief will not hold of the statue. was extensively used on all terra-cotta productions, and we have seen that it was also employed on sculptures forming part of a building. In general, the more valuable the material the more sparing the use of color. In the earlier works in coarse stone a very elaborate and brilliant system is used; later only the details are thus indicated. Except in architectural reliefs, there is very little evidence of the use of color on the nude parts of marble. In statues such surfaces seem to have been treated with wax and oil, thus toning down the surface of the marble and giving it a slight polish. The hair, lips, and eyes were regularly painted. In the garments a distinction seems possible. On the Acropolis statues (see Plate) the under garment, which only shows on the shoulder and about the feet, often receives a solid color. On the other garments only the borders or embroidery is indicated. It seems as if the artist desired to avoid large masses of color, unless the conditions were such that such a mass would form an effective contrast to the marble. In reliefs color is freely employed