. Report on the investigations at Assos, 1882, 1883, pt. I . INVESTIGATIONS AT ASSOS, 1S83. 173 It is interesting to compare the sculpture of this epistylefrom the less important facade, to which our newly discov-ered fragment appertains, with that of its pendant from thefront of the building. A glance at the photogravures of thetwo reliefs (Figs. 40, 41) will suffice to show that the figureswere executed from the same design, but by different hands,differing widely in technical skill. The variations in positionmanifestly resulted from the sphinxes being framed in panelsof unequal dimensions,
. Report on the investigations at Assos, 1882, 1883, pt. I . INVESTIGATIONS AT ASSOS, 1S83. 173 It is interesting to compare the sculpture of this epistylefrom the less important facade, to which our newly discov-ered fragment appertains, with that of its pendant from thefront of the building. A glance at the photogravures of thetwo reliefs (Figs. 40, 41) will suffice to show that the figureswere executed from the same design, but by different hands,differing widely in technical skill. The variations in positionmanifestly resulted from the sphinxes being framed in panelsof unequal dimensions, that of the front measuring less than m., while that of the rear was considerably more than m. in length. The sculptor of the latter placed his fig-ures quite as near to the ends of the block as they were inthe former, the entire difference in length falling betweenthe heads and breasts of the animals. Thus the fore legsof the western sphinxes were disproportionately lengthened,while the angle of their elevation was correspondingly de-creased. It w
Size: 1048px × 2384px
Photo credit: © Reading Room 2020 / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1800, bookdecade1890, bookidreportoninve, bookyear1898
