V, the river-god Cephisos or Ilissos. We do not propose to discuss these names further, but would rather insist on a due consideration of the place of the angle figures in the composition as a whole. To begin with, they are separated, as already said, by a gap from the family group next them. If the figures in the angles belong to a different order of beings, then we can understand these gaps and can feel the artistic significance of them, and at the same time appreciate at their proper worth all attempts to fill in these gaps with legendary heroes, and so extend the family group continuously right into each angle, as Professor Furtwaengler wishes.' In his view the reclining figure, A, would be a local hero Buziges, whom we hardly know by name; and Cecrops, instead of being conspicuous at the head of his family, would only be one hero among others. We prefer the familiar name of the Ilissos for the angle figure, A, not only because he would thus be a being of a different order—that is to say, a personification of a river-but also because he would thus represent the locality, as do the river-gods in the angles of the east pediment of Olympia. We lay stress on the parallel instance of Olympia (1) because of the artistic resemblance between the river-gods there and the Ilissos; (2) because of the express statement of Pausanias, which no one would doubt in this case unless he had another axe to grind; and (3) because of what we know concerning the habit of thought of Pheidias in indicating the localities of his great compositions. In late Greek and Roman art the presence of river-gods at the extremities 1 Meisterwerke, p. 241. E |