Cook, Arthur B.: Zeus: a study in ancient religion (Band 3,1): Zeus god of the dark sky (earthquake, clouds, wind, dew, rain, meteorits): Text and notes (Cambridge, 1940)

The stone of Kronos

933

Hera Teleia1 stood on a square plinth decorated in relief with the
figures of Kronos and Rhea, both statue and plinth being, rightly
or wrongly, ascribed to Praxiteles2. Obvious parallels are afforded
by Pheidias' statue of Athena Parthenos on its sculptured plinth3,
and Praxiteles' statues of Leto and her children on ' the Mantinean
base4.' If so, it is likely enough that a Romanised copy of the
Praxitelean relief survives in a beautiful composition on the am
Capitolina (fig. 778)5. Kronos, a kingly figure6, enthroned on the
right, rests one hand on the veil that covers his head7 and extends
the other to receive the stone from Rhea, who, veiled likewise,
advances with dignity from the left. H. Stuart Jones8 observes:

1 For numismatic evidence see Imhoof-Blumer and P. Gardner Num. Comm. Pans.
i. in, J. de Foville 'Les statues de Hera a Platees d'apres les monnaies' in the Rev.
Num. iv Serie 1906 x. 253—261 figs. 1—3.

2 Furtwangler Masterpieces of Gk. Sculpt, p. 102 argues that, since the temple of
Hera at Plataiai was built in the year 427/426 B.C. (Thouk. 3. 68), its sculptures must be
assigned to 'the elder Praxiteles,' whose floruit he would date c. 445—425. The same
opinion is expressed by several modern critics, e.g. Collignon Hist, de la Sculpt, gr. ii.
179 n. o, G. M. A. Richter The Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks Yale Univ. Press
1929 p. 241.

But the existence of this 'elder Praxiteles,' postulated by W. Klein in the Arch.-ep.
Mitth. 1880 iv. 1—25, is still highly problematic: see e.g. U. Koehler 'Praxiteles der
altere' in the Ath. Mitth. 1884 ix. 78—82, P. Perdrizet 'Note genealogique sur la
faniille de Praxitele' in the Rev. Et. Gr. 1S98 xi. 82—95, C. Picard La sculpture antique
Paris 1926 ii. 77 ('le pseudo-Praxitele l'Ancien').

3 Supra ii pi. xlv.

4 Paus. 8. 9. 1, with the remarks of G. M. A. Richter op. cit. p. 198 f. figs. 679—681.
Supra p. 660 figs. 471, 472.

5 In addition to the bibliography given supra i. 43 n. 1 see now Stuart Jones Cat.
Sculpt. Mus. Capit. Rome p. 276 f. Salone no. 3 a (2) pi. 66 ( = my fig. 778).

0 Not uninfluenced by the type of Zeus as conceived by Alexander the Great {supra
»• 760 f. figs. 704—707).

' On the veiled Kronos see M. Mayer in Roscher Lex. Myth. ii. 15^8—1563
9—16, 18, M. Pohlenz in Pauly—Wissowa Real-Enc. xi.
20I5—2017. To the examples cited by them may be added a
Malachite cameo (cp. supra p. 538 n. o) of Graeco-Roman date
in my possession (fig. 777 : scale #). The engraver has, quaintly
enough, tried to represent ' hunc maestum, senem, canum, caput
glauco amictu coopertum habentem, filiorum suorum voratorem'
(Myth. Vat. 3. 1. 1) by using the darkest part of the stone for the
sinister face, a lighter green for the hair and beard, and a white
streak for the top of the veil.

The significance of Kronos' veil is far from clear. A. Jeremias
V*r Schleier von Sumer bis heute (Der A lie Orient xxxi Heft 1/2) F;g _77

j-eipzig pp_ r—70 omits Kronos altogether. M. Pohlenz

°c- cit. p. 20I7i after dismissing earlier views, suggests 'alte Kultelemente wie bei der
Harpe.' A. H. Krappe in his Balor With the Evil Eye Columbia University 1927
P- 23 ff. and in his courageous survey Mythologie universelle Paris 1930 p. 250 conjectures
the Greek Kronos and the Italian Saturn had, like the Irish Balor, a third eye in

>e back of the head, which being an evil eye 'had to be covered up lest it should strike
■nnocent people with its destructive glance.' 8 Stuart Jones op. cit. p. 277.