Cook, Arthur B.: Zeus: a study in ancient religion (Band 1): Zeus god of the bright sky (Cambridge, 1914)

36

The Blue Nimbus

intention may well have been to eclipse the Olympian Zeus of
Pheidias by a seated colossus of yet vaster bulk. Moreover, both
Strabon1 and Pliny2 speak in the next breath of another colossal
bronze made by Lysippos for the Tarentines: this represented
Herakles without weapons, seated and resting his head on his left
hand3—a fitting pendant to a Zeus in the Pompeian pose. Pliny's
curious remark about the weight being moveable by hand might
refer to some accessory such as the eagle of Zeus4; and his idea that
the pillar set up beside the statue was intended to break the force of
the wind is due to an obvious misunderstanding of the sacred stone.
In short, the evidence that our painting and bas-relief presuppose
Lysippos' famous work, though not conclusive, is fairly strong.

In this connexion it should be observed that Apulian vases—
Tarentine vases, as Prof. Furtwangler called them on the ground
that they were much used, if not manufactured, at Tarentum5,—
more than once represent an ancient cult of Zeus by means of a
simple pillar closely resembling that of the Pompeian painting or
that of the Neapolitan relief. Thus a vase in the Louvre (fig. g)6
depicts Hippodameia offering aphidle to her father Oinomaos, who
is about to pour a libation over a primitive squared pillar before
starting on the fateful race with Pelops. An amphora from Ruvo,
now in the British Museum (pi. hi.)7, has the same scene with

the pillar is perched his eagle. In the field to right and left of his head are a star (sun ?)
and a crescent moon. The god is flanked by two smaller figures of the Dioskouroi, each
with lance in hand and star on head. This design probably represents a definite cult-
group e.g. at Tarentum, where the worship of the pillar-Zeus may have been combined
with that of the Dioskouroi. If Lysippos' colossal Zeus (supra p. 35) was a standing,
not a seated, figure, the Berlin paste perhaps gives us some idea of it.
1 Strab. 278. 2 Plin. nat. hist. 34. 40.

3 Niketas Choniates de signis Constantinopolitanis 5 p. 859 f. Bekker. The type is
reproduced on an ivory casket (s. ix—x): see A. Furtwangler in the Sitzungsber. d. konigl.
bayer. Akad. d. Wiss. Phil.-hist. Classe 1902 pp. 435—442, O. M. Dalton Byzantine
Art and Archaeology Oxford 1911 pp. 122, 216.

4 Cp. what he says about the stag of Kanachos' Apollon in nat. hist. 34. 75.

5 Furtwangler Masterpieces of Gk. Sculpt, p. 109 f., Furtwangler-Reichhold Gr.
Vasenmalerei i. 47, ii. 107 (giving both appellations), 139 (reverting to the older nomen-
clature). See further H. B. Walters History of Ancient Pottery London 1905 i. 486.

6 Arch. Zeit. 1853 xi. 44 f. pi. 54, 2.

7 Brit. Mus. Cat. Vases iv. 164 f. no. F 331, Ann. d. Inst. 1840 xii. 171 ff. pis. N, O,
Arch. Zeit. 1853 x*- 42 ff. pb 54, 1, Class. Rev. 1903 xvii. 271 f. fig. 1. These
illustrations being inexact, I have had a fresh drawing made. My friend Mr H. B.
Walters in a letter dated May 15, 1911 writes—'The following parts of the principal
subject are restored: Oinomaos from waist to knees and left side of chlamys. Myrtilos all
except head and shoulders, right hand and part of left arm. Aphrodite lower part of
right leg and knee with drapery. There are also bits of restored paint along the lines of
fracture. All the rest is quite trustworthy, except that I am a little bit doubtful about
the AIOS inscription. The A is certainly genuine, but the other letters look suspicious,
especially the 25.'