Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens (5.1886-1890)

86

A SIKYONIAN STATUE.

to suppose, about the bead of our statue, an ivy-wreath of bronze, with
broad, full leaves ?

The height of the forehead, as already shown, though not necessa-
rily conflicting, yet seems unusual in a Dionysos. Furtwangler, in his
excellent notice of the Berlin head, already referred to,29 says that it
can be none other than that of Dionysos on account of the fillet in the
hair which touches the middle of the forehead and there conceals the
roots of the hair—a characteristic of Dionysos. Die gewdhnliehe Binde,
he continues, imirde bekanntlieh vicl writer hinten im Ilaarc getragen.
In alterer Zeit tragi Dionysos ganz regelmdssig den Epheuhrunz um das
Haupt tmd dieser scheint aueh unsercm Kopfe nicht gefehlt zu haben ;
eine schrdge Reihe kleiner Lbeher hinter dem Vorderhaar (darin z. Tit.
noch Reste eiserner Stifle) zeugen davon, dass em solcher aus MetaU-
bldttern angesctzt war. Here we have something parallel to our statue.
From the end of the fifth century there appears in figures of Dionysos,
besides the wreath or instead of it, a broad fillet, like that previously
described, above the middle of the forehead. This arrangement, derived
from the symposia! habits of the time and explained by Diodorus
Siculus (rv. 4.4), was adopted as a peculiar attribute of Dionysos, and
from it lie derived the epithet /x,iTpr](j)6po<;. This fillet, originally
separate from the wreath, as we see it in the Berlin head, was later
for the most part adorned with ivy-leaves and ivy-berries, and came
to form an integral part of the wreath (mit dem Kranze zu einem
Ganzen verbunden). Such an arrangement is common in terracottas
of Asia Minor and marbles of the Roman period. Can we now
assume any such arrangement in the case of our statue ? That the
fillet was not indicated in the marble is at once evident; and without a
cast it is impossible to state whether it might have been formed in
metal and connected with the wreath. It is worthy of note, and plain
in the photograph, that the hair immediately over the forehead is, near
its roots, in noticeably lower relief than the waving locks which rise
above it, and that, in the depressions of the curls at either side, a metal
fillet might have rested with the wreath. This point, however, can-
not at present be fully settled.

Before leaving this subject, I must again call attention to the paper
of Furtwangler which has been previously quoted. He has summed

though No. 1283 is bearded. It may be added that the fullness of the back of the
head is far more Praxitelean than Lysippian.
"Sammlung Sabouroff, text to Taj. xxiii.