Perry, Walter Copland: Greek and Roman sculpture: a popular introduction to the history of Greek and Roman sculpture (London, 1882)

4H

THE NIOBE GROUP.

CHAPTER XXXV.

the niobe group}
(Fig. 177-)

The myth of Niobe and her children is familiar to much humbler
individuals than Macaulay's odious ' fifth-form boy,'2 and it would be
impertinent to repeat in this place the incidents of their tragic fate.

The catastrophe of the once proud queen of Thebes, in which she
retains nothing of her former nature but the sense of bereavement and

Fig. 177. ,

a e / * g h

THE NIOBE GROUP.

the power of tears, had precisely the mingled elements of beaut)-,
pathos, and thrilling tragic interest, which w ould draw the attention of
the younger Attic school. We arc not surprised therefore to find in
Pliny a brief notice of a group ofNiobe'and Iter children, concerning
which he adds that it was doubted whether it was the work of
Praxiteles or Scopas.3 The question will in all probability never be

1 The Niobe tragedy had been treated by 1 Nam quUnon Nloben numerow funert mutant
— *— N011 cccinit'!

art on the Throne of the Olymp. Zeus (Pan-

san. v. II. 2 ; Brunn, Kiinstl.-Gtsch. i. I74). Olymp. NemerianUS, in beginning of the

wherePheidias brought it intoconnexion with CygtHHica. Conf. Soph. Antique, 822;

the Theban story of the Sphinx. The niinta- glatra, 147; Herat Oil. vi. 6. I; Juvenal,

ture sketch of the group (fig. 177) does not Sa( yj y[

give exactly the arrangement adopted in the „" pj[n # jj xxxvi 2g . , par ])iTsjtatio

Ufiui at Florence, but the one which seems ^ -m lcm]t]o Apollinis Sosiani Niobseliberos

to me most correct. A figure is missing nl,„.icntjs Scopas an Praxiteles fecerit.' A
between Niobe and the Pedagogue.