The Judgment of Animals in Classical Greece: Animal Sculpture and ...

their grip, for a “tooth” on each part is so geared that when one is dislodged by
pressure the other in its turn springs into place. (NH 34.75) [154] 26
There is a Bull-calf by Menaechmus, on which a man is pressing his knee as he
bends its neck back; Menaechmus has written a treatise about his own work.
(NH 34.80) [155] 27
In the case of Kanachos, the stag dominates the description of the statue of Apollo to
which it belongs, and is also the point of an astonishing technical innovation. In the case
of Menaechmus, the bull-calf seems to be the primary subject of the composition, even
though the man also depicted has the advantage over the animal. The fact that both
examples focus on animals as notable parts of two statues by particular sculptors is an
indication of the importance of animals as representational subjects in Greek sculpture.
But can Pliny’s account be considered representative in any way of how animal images
and artists were actually considered in late Archaic Greece? Pollitt has advanced the
view that Pliny was a compiler of tradition in ancient writings on art, meaning that the
relevant section of his Natural History encapsulates traditional ideas about earlier art and
26 Pollitt, Sources and Documents 34, n. 4, mentions that “[r]eproductions of this statue on coins and in
small bronzes and terracottas suggest that this stag was a small object in the Apollo’s outstretched
hand….The statue was taken away to Ecbatana by the Persian king Darius (Herodotus 6.19 and Pausanias
1.16.3) but was later restored by the Hellenistic king Seleukos Nikator (312-281 B.C.).”
27 This pose is exemplified by west metope 5 from the early Classical temple of Zeus at Olympia, which
according to J. Boardman, Greek Sculpture. The Classical Period. A Handbook (London and New York,
1985) fig. 22.5 depicts Heracles fighting the Kerynitian hind; also by metope 19 (perhaps on the north or
west side) of the Athenian Treasury at Delphi, which is thought to depict the same subject: J. Boardman,
Greek Sculpture. The Archaic Period. A Handbook (London and New York 1978, repr. 1996) fig. 213.19.
Boardman also notes (159) the debate over the dubious date of this building, whether it pre- or postdates
the battle of Marathon (490 B.C.), which according to Pausanias (10.11.5) was the reason for its erection.
Boardman states (159) that the “subject matter of its metopes, dividing the honor between Heracles and
Theseus, make it a good propaganda document of the new democracy,” therefore showing his approval of a
date after the battle of Marathon for the building. For a discussion of the style of the metopes of the
Athenian treasury at Delphi and its architecture in connection with its date, see E. C. Partida, The
Treasuries at Delphi. An Architectural Study (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature 160;
Jonsered, Sweden, 2000) 52-53, 253. For a recent summary of studies on the Athenian Treasury, see R.
Neer, “The Athenian Treasury at Delphi and the Material of Politics,” ClAnt 23 (2004) 64, n. 2. Further,
the pose is exemplified by Parthenon south metope 2, where a Lapith presses his left bent knee on the body
of a fighting centaur, whose head he tries to hold back while gripping him with his left hand by the throat
and beard. For the depiction of this scene see, J. Boardman and D. Finn, The Parthenon and Its Sculptures
(Austin, 1985) 44; also I. Jenkins, The Parthenon Sculptures (Cambridge, Mass., 2007) 70 maintains that
“the Lapith’s headlock is a hold observed from real-life wrestling in the gymnasium.”
21