STATUA´RIA ARS
STATUA´RIA ARS This title will be used in the present article in its widest interpretation, including in fact all that we call by the name “sculpture,” whether in relief or in the round, and whatever be the material in which it is executed. For details in various branches of the subject, special articles must be consulted; and for information as to the life, works, and style of the various artists mentioned, see the articles under their respective names in the Dictionary of Biography and Mythology. Here will be found--I. a description of the materials and technique of ancient sculpture; and II. a historical sketch of its development and decline, with special reference to the relations and periods of the various schools, and to extant works of sculpture.
I. Materials and Technique.
As to materials, we may distinguish (a） stone and marble; (b) bronze and other metals, such as silver; (c) wood, sometimes inlaid and gilded, or with portions in marble (acrolithi) or gold and ivory (chryselephantina); (d) terra-cotta. The technique must be considered in each case separately.（a) Stone or Marble.--This is the most important to us, because, from the nature of the [p. 2.697]materials, nearly all the statues still preserved are of this class. But it must always be remembered that this material had no such preponderance over the others in ancient times as it has in modern museums. But it was at all times very extensively used, and consequently we possess examples of all periods in stone or marble, from the shapeless dolls which show the first rude attempts to represent the human form, through the rise, finest period, and decline of sculpture, to the last decadence of Roman work.
The “invention” of sculpture in marble is traditionally attributed to Melas of Chios and his family, in which Archermus is the bestknown name. Like other traditions of “inventions,” this must not be insisted upon.
In the earliest period of sculpture, the squareness of the form of the body has often been noticed. Some have wrongly attributed this to an influence of wood technique. It is doubtless due to the fact that the early sculptors, like beginners of to-day, traced first the full aspect or profile of a figure on the front or side of their block, and then worked through at right angles to the surface: traces of this proceeding are clear on some unfinished statues, which have the flat surfaces and corners produced by it not yet rounded off.
Much confusion exists in the opinions of archaeologists as to the extent to which pointing from a finished clay model was used. In some cases points are still visible, not completely worked off the statue. But this is only in the case of late Hellenistic or Roman works, and it may be seriously doubted whether any such practice prevailed in the best times of Greek sculpture. Unfinished Greek statues--of which several exist in Athens--show no sign of it. The block is worked away in successive layers, more delicate instruments being used as the sculpture progressed. For the probable facts as to the use of clay models (proplasmata) see sub voc., and also section (d) below. The tools mostly used were the punch, with a mallet, and various chisels; in a more advanced stage of the statue a claw chisel was used; it was then finished with an ordinary chisel. Traces of all these processes are clear in unfinished statues. The drill seems to have been used in earlier times only for fixing ornaments, &c. Callimachus is said to have been the first to make sculptural use of it. Later it was extensively used for the hair and the deeper folds of the drapery, and in careless work its marks were never worked off. A very highly polished surface is characteristic of works of the Hellenistic period, and especially of the Pergamene school. The application of colour is a question of great importance, which can now be decided with regard to archaic works, though there is still some difficulty as to statues of later periods. Where rough stone was used, colour was applied to all parts, more or less conventionally--red for the nude parts, and blue for hair, clothes, &c., being the colours most used. But as marble came to be more extensively and afterwards almost exclusively used, the beauty of the material and its exquisite rendering of the texture of the skin naturally precluded the use of colour on the nude parts: this was especially the case with female statues, the white colour for the skin of women being already prevalent on archaic vases. In the best preserved series, the archaic female statues on the Acropolis at Athens, we find the skin and the whole mass of the drapery left uncoloured; red is applied to the hair, lips, and eyes, in the last case with touches in dark purple or brown, and other colours; and the drapery has borders and scattered ornaments painted on it in red, blue, green, and dark purple or brown. A garment is completely coloured only when but a small portion of it shows; e. g. the breast and sleeve of a chiton when an outer garment is worn that conceals the rest of it. To judge from this evidence, it seems impossible that in the finest period it was customary to apply colour to the whole or great part of the surface of a statue. (We are, however, told that Praxiteles considered those works to be his best which were improved by the “circumlitio” of the painter Nicias.) Surviving examples of tinted statues of later period--one or two are known--may possibly be either experiments or imitations of terracotta or other materials. But it is impossible to be certain until we have as complete and well-preserved a set of statues surviving from some later period as those on the Acropolis from the time preceding the Persian wars--a discovery perhaps beyond hope.
In the earliest times all kinds of local marble were used; that of Paros, sometimes called lychnites, came early into common use from the fame of local artists, and its excellence made it always remain the favourite. Pentelic marble was extensively used at Athens during and after the fifth century; Hymettic only for inferior work, except in the earliest time. In the Roman period the quarries of Luna, the modern Carrara, were worked very extensively.
（b) Bronze, &c.--Bronze was probably the material most used by the great artists of antiquity, but the ease with which it was destroyed and melted down into useful metal has spared us but few examples. Beside statuettes, which are innumerable, only a few life-size or larger statues remain: among the most important are the archaic bearded head found on the Acropolis at Athens in 1887, a seated statue of a boxer found in Rome in 1886, and the head of Aphrodite in the British Museum. Various mixtures of bronze were known, and preferred by different artists; the Corinthian and Aeginetan were the best known [see AES].
The most primitive method of bronze-working implies no knowledge of casting, but merely hammering plates into the required shape and then riveting them together. Bronze-founding is said to have been “invented” by Rhoecus and Theodorus of Samos, about the middle of the sixth century; the nature and extent of this “invention” are not clear; a colossal bowl of bronze is said to have been made in Samos long before their time. It is doubtful at what period hollow casting of complete statues became usual. This was probably done, as it is now, by the cire perdue process. In this process the modelling is finished on a layer of wax over a fire-proof core. A casing is added, and the wax is then melted out and bronze poured in. On a vase, probably of the fifth century, is represented a bronze founder's workshop, where [p. 2.698]the body, head, and limbs, cast separately, are being finished and inserted into their places by workmen. The final polishing and finish of detail took place after casting, and on the same vase are some workmen employed in these processes, which properly belong to CAELATURA q. v. Caelatura also includes all purely decorative work in metal, such as was frequently applied to the details of great statues.
Silver and gold, as well as bronze, were occasionally used for statues; e. g. a gold sphyrelatum of Zeus was dedicated by the Cypselidae of Corinth at Olympia. Such a work is quite distinct from the chryselephantina, which probably are a development of the next material.
（c) Wood, often gilt and enriched with other materials. This material was extensively used in early times, but naturally has not been preserved: the primitive ξόανα were frequently, but not exclusively, of wood; the influence of wood technique on early sculpture has probably been exaggerated. The development of this material is seen in the works of Dipoenus and Scyllis of Crete, and the school they founded in Sparta. First comes the use of ivory and ebony; then the wood is coated with gold, and so the transition is easy to the great chryselephantine works, in which gold and ivory only are seen. Of course such statues must have had a core of wood when small (at Megara the wooden portions of an unfinished gold and ivory statue were preserved): this was replaced by an internal framework when on a large scale. Acrolithi, in which the ivory is replaced by marble, and the gold by gilded wood, were a cheap substitute for chryselepihantia.
（d) Terracotta was very little used for monumental purposes by the Greeks, though it is said to have been used for temple sculptures at an early period in Italy. But the use of claymoulding is a question of great importance and difficulty. Figurines in terracotta, mostly made for dedication in temples or burial in tombs, are preserved in very large quantities in all museums. They supply the models of the earliest and rudest art; they reproduce the masterpieces of all periods, and many artists devoted great skill and originality to their manufacture [TERRACOTTA]. These terracottas can only be referred to here for the information they give us as to the larger and more monumental works which form the subject of the present article. But in connexion with this material and the process of modelling it, must be also considered the use of finished clay models in making statues of marble or bronze. The clearest passage concerning this is in Pliny, 35.156: “Pasitelen, qui plasticen matrem caelaturae et statuariae sculpturaeque dixit, . . . et nihil umquam fecit antequam finxit;” and he makes similar statements as to Arcesilaus. We thus see that the practice was used by the chief artists of the first century B.C. We do not know for certain how much earlier it began. Just above ( § 153), but in confused context, Pliny seems to state that after the, time of Lysistratus, the brother of Lysippus, no statues were made without the use of clay models. Thus it seems to be implied that a universal use of finished clay models came in after the end of the fourth century. On the other hand, the famous remark of Polycleitus, who worked mostly in bronze, χαλεπώτατον τὸ ἔργον, ὅταν ἐν ὄνυχι ὁ πηλός seems to imply a use of finished clay models, at least in the case of bronze works, at a considerably earlier date. Great works in gold and ivory also seem to imply a finished clay model after which the scales could be worked. And we hear of one such work (by Theocosmus at Megara) in which, the materials failing, the body was supplied with plaster and clay--doubtless the model prepared for the work. But at least in the case of marble we have seen that execution was more or less free hand in the best period, and that pointing from a finished clay model was certainly not universal till Roman times, if even then. It is at any rate certain that the practice of making first a clay model, whatever was to be the final material, and leaving the rest to copying by more or less mechanical means, was not in use among Greek sculptors, who always carried out the details of practical execution in the final material as far as possible with their own hands. On unfinished works of Greek or even Hellenistic period (e. g. the small frieze of Pergamus) puntelli are not usually to be found; they occur on works of the Roman period.
II. Historical Sketch.
The beginnings of Greek sculpture may be assigned to about the year 600 B.C. What art existed before in Greece was either purely decorative, or entirely subordinate to foreign influences. It will be well to divide the whole history into periods, for greater facility in its consideration.- 1. Before 600 B.C. Earliest traditions; foreign influences.
- 2. 600 B.C.--480 B.C. Greek archaic--Early schools.
- 3. 480 B.C.--400 B.C. Greek fifth century--Phidias, Polycleitus.
- 4. 400 B.C.--320 B.C. Greek fourth century--Praxiteles, Scopas, Lysippus.
- 5. 320 B.C.--150 B.C. Hellenistic--Asiatic schools.
- 6. 150 B.C.--300 A.D. Graeco-Roman and Roman.
1. Before 600 B.C. Earliest traditions; foreign influences.
Before considering Greek tradition, we must first recall the state of foreign arts at this time, and the channels by which they could influence the nascent art of Greece.Egyptian art had in the seventh century reached a low ebb, having declined since the period of colossal works which accompanied the national revival under the Ramessid dynasty. But another revival took place under the prosperous rule of Psammetichus, marked more by delicacy of execution than greatness of conception. Psammetichus seems to have favoured foreign intercourse, and the first Milesian colony at Naucratis was founded in his reign. The direct influence of Egyptian art on Greece must, however, been less than the indirect, conveyed chiefly through the Phoenicians. The same people probably conveyed to Greece the influence of Assyrian art, which had passed through all the stages of its development before sculpture can be said to have begun in Greece. But at a time when no copies, casts, or drawings of foreign works of art existed, and when artists [p. 2.699]cannot often have travelled to study foreign masterpieces, the only possible means for conveying foreign influence must have consisted in small and portable articles, arms and utensils, reliefs, statuettes and carvings in ivory, wood, metal, &c., such as could easily be made articles of traffic. Such objects might either be Phoenician imitations, or might be genuine products of the art they represented. With the arts of Asia Minor the case is different. The numerous Greek colonies here superseded any need of Phoenician intermediaries, and intercourse with Phrygia, Lydia, Caria, and Lycia is to be inferred both from tradition and extant remains. Various rock-cut sculptures of Asia Minor, such as the Niobe of Mount Sipylus, were known to the Greeks from early times. Above all, several of the islands served as centres where Oriental and Greek art met: the position of Cyprus in this respect is often misunderstood; the Greek element there was always subordinate, and all arts seem to have lingered and died out, but never to have developed. To Rhodes, on the other hand, may be traced many of the most fruitful influences in early Greece; and it seems probable that a similar position was held in the earliest times by Crete, though this cannot be certainly known till extensive excavations have taken place in that island.
Some vague tradition of the influences just mentioned may be traced in the myths of such creatures as the Cyclopes, Idaean Dactyli, and Telchines--monsters or daemons of superhuman strength and skill. The Cyclopes are usually said to come from Lycia; they are usually represented as the builders of colossal walls. such as those of Mycenae and Tiryns; but works of sculpture are attributed to them--a head of Medusa at Argos and the Lions over the gate at Mycenae (which really belong to a Phrygian series). The Idaean Dactyli, or Fingers from Mount Ida, are attributed sometimes to Ida in Phrygia, sometimes to Ida in Crete; besides possessing skill in magic, they are said to have invented the working of iron. The Telchines, often in later times confused with the Dactyli even in names, seem to belong to Rhodes (Ov. Met. 7.365), but are also connected with Crete and Cyprus. They, too, work in iron and bronze, and also practise magic. To these mythical workmen are attributed such objects as the Trident of Poseidon, the thunderbolts of Zeus, the Sickle of Cronus. It is obviously absurd to look for historical races or persons in such stories; but the countries to which they are assigned may indicate the belief of the Greeks as to the quarters whence were derived the technical appliances of art in the earliest times.
The next step in tradition brings us to Daedalus and other names of what is sometimes called the Heroic period of art. Late writers describe the improvements made by Daedalus in sculpture, by opening the eyes, separating the legs, and freeing the arms from the body, and ascribe extant works to him, as if he were a historical person. But these statements are obviously mere euhemeristic or rationalistic explanations of old tales of magic; Plato, Euripides, and Aristotle ascribe to him, not only sculptural attainments, but feats of magic, such as are ascribed also to Hephaestus. It is also obvious that statues with eyes shut probably never existed, that the legs are separated in the conventional stride in Egyptian and other imported statuettes, and that the arms remained close to the body far later than any period that could be assigned to Daedalus. In Homer he is only referred to as devising a χορὸς (i. e. a dance or dancing-place) for Ariadne--not necessarily as a sculptor; a late misinterpretation identified the actual relief he made with one extant at Cnossus in Crete. But there is no more reason for attributing historical truth to his inventions in the art of sculpture than in that of flying. By the earlier Greeks he was regarded as a mythical inventor and magician, from whom families in Athens and in Crete claimed descent; he became later the personification of early Greek art, and hence, naturally enough, statues of Greek origin and unknown antiquity came to be attributed to him.
One or two other names of artists belong to the heroic period. As the maker of the Trojan wooden horse, Epeius has more claim to being mentioned as a sculptor in Homer than Daedalus has; later, at least one extant statue was attributed to him; but his character seems no less legendary. So, too, statues said to have been dedicated by various heroes were probably either imported or native works of unknown antiquity. Even Pausanias notes that a bronze statue said to be dedicated by Ulysses was cast in one piece, and so could not go back to his time. Two or three of the earliest Greek sculptors may perhaps belong to this period before 600 B.C.; but there are as yet no schools, and no regular succession. Some works of decorative relief must, however, be noticed, which, though not properly works of sculpture, are usually included in all books upon the subject. The Shield of Achilles is the first of this series. It is not to be imagined that the description in Homer (which, though probably an interpolation, is still as early as 700 B.C.) is derived from any single shield, or even that its individual scenes describe actual reliefs seen by the poet. But though the arrangement is his own, the detailed description of such a work seems to imply that the poet had seen similar subjects similarly treated, though not necessarily by a Greek artist; the nearest analogy is to be found in Phoenician bowls: with these, too, the arrangement in five concentric zones corresponds. The scenes, as in Oriental reliefs, are all from ordinary life. In the Shield of Heracles, wrongly ascribed to Hesiod, the same arrangement in zones, but more complicated, is described; but the scenes are already partly mythological.
We may compare these poetical descriptions of imaginary works with the Chest of Cypselus, dedicated at Olympia, which Pausanias describes. [ARCA] Cypselus reigned in Corinth 657-629 B.C.; and as the chest was dedicated by his descendants the Cypselids, it may probably be assigned to the end of the seventh century. (Most authorities place it much earlier, saying that it is the identical chest in which Cypselus was hidden when a child; but even if it were so, the decorations were probably added just before dedication, as their character and the added inscriptions show.) Here the scenes, which were arranged in five friezes along the chest, and were carved in the wood with additions in ivory and gold, are taken entirely from mythology. [p. 2.700]The nearest analogy to this work is seen in the Corinthian vases of the sixth century being a decorative work, it can only be here quoted incidentally, to show the standard attained both in subjects and technical facility at the time when sculpture was first beginning in Greece. It is, however, recorded that certain images of the gods existed even in this earliest period. The only apparent exception to the statement that sculpture is unknown to Homer is offered by the figure of Athena in Troy, upon whose knees the matrons lay a robe. But this need not imply a completely finished statue; those covered in later times with votive drapery were of the rudest and most primitive description. The golden youths bearing torches in the palace of Alcinous, like the golden maidens of Hephaestus, belong to magic rather than to sculpture. Doubtless some of the representations of the gods dated from a very remote period; they are described as mere logs or rough stones, δόκανα or λίθοι ἀργοί, and in some cases are said to have fallen from heaven: these were often ornamented in various ways; often they were wrapped in drapery; sometimes they were plated with bronze: the Apollo of Amyclae was a bronze column, with helmeted head and hands and feet attached. Such rude images of the gods exist among all primitive peoples; but it was not the development of these images, of which the type was fixed by religious conservatism, that led to the rise of Greek sculpture. Statues, whether of the worshipper or the god, dedicated in temples, offered freer scope than the temple statue itself; and these were rather enlarged imitations, at first, of imported foreign models, than repetitions of the sacred image.
(For more details as to this period, see ACROLITHI, DAEDALA DOIKANA in Vol. I., and Dict. Biog. & Myth.: Cyclopes, Dactyli, Telchines, Hephaestus, Daedalus, Epeius.)
2. 600 B.C.--480 B.C. Greek Archaic--Early Schools.
During the rise of Greek sculpture, the artists recorded by literature belong to local schools or even families, which, while they influence one another, preserve a character of their own. It is not always easy to associate these schools with extant works. Tradition assigns various schools, working in various materials, to the islands: Chian marble workers, the family of Melas, Micciades, Arohermus, Bupalus, and Athenis; Samian bronze-founders, Rhoecus, Theodorus, and Telecles; Cretans working in marble and wood, Dipoenus and Scyllis, the “Daedalids,” who worked also in many cities of the mainland, and had scholars in Sparta and elsewhere. Generally we notice the importance of the islands, and not the same islands as in the previous period, except Crete with its tradition of Daedalid masters. Naxos and Paros with their marble quarries, Samos and Chios, in close touch with the art of eastern Asia Minor, and Thasos, are all conspicuous either for recorded artists or actual works that they have yielded.Among the most primitive statues extant is that of Hera from Samos, in Paris (fig. 1), which is merely a round column below, with elaborate drapery. Parts of two similar figures are on the Acropolis at Athens.
From various indications, we are led to believe that what we may best call the Ionic style was in early times of great influence and importance. Several works are still preserved from Asia Minor: the seated statues from the sacred way at Branchidae near Miletus; the earlier temple
 |
| Fig. 1. Hera, from Samos. (Louvre.) |
 |
| Fig. 2. Winged figure by Archermus. (Athens.) |
 |
| Fig. 3. Head of statue on Acropolis, Athens. |
Discussions have arisen whether these are statues of that god, or portraits of the deceased erected on graves, or athlete statues; the fact is that they simply represent the common male type, and that without special indications, such as attributes or circumstances of finding, it is impossible to decide what was the artist's intention in making them. Here may be quoted especially the Apollo of Thera, which may be attributed to an island school. The stela of Aristocles also shows the tradition of the Ionic school in Athens. The pictorial and harmonious composition and expression, with the notion of power and rest they convey, offer the greatest contrast to Aeginetan and Peloponnesian works, lively and excellent in muscular detail, but angular and forced in attitude.
In the art of the Peloponnese various influences may be traced; some early grave reliefs from near Sparta, which show the deceased as a hero, with worshippers, are in flat planes with squarecut [p. 2.702]edges, perhaps a reminiscence of wood technique. The earliest Spartan artists are said to have been scholars of the Cretans Dipoenus
 |
| Fig. 4. Apollo, from Tenea. (Munich.) |
Another artist who worked in Sparta was Clearchus of Rhegium, also a pupil of Dipoenus and Scyllis, who made a bronze statue of Zeus, beaten in plates and riveted. He was the master of Pythagoras of Samos and Rhegium.
Two allied styles, those of Megara and its colony Selinus in Sicily, are known to us by architectural sculptures still preserved. The pediment of the Treasury of the Megarians at Olympia represents a gigantomachy, which both in subject and style strongly resembles the metopes of a Selinus temple of middle period. There is another temple at Selinus considerably older, and probably not much later than the foundation of the colony, and so belonging to the beginning of the sixth century. Its metopes, in high and round relief, but with thick ungainly forms and grotesque subjects and treatment, represent Perseus slaying the Gorgon, Heracles with the Cercopes slung on a stick across his shoulders, and a chariot, the last apparently of a more advanced art. There is also a third and much later temple at Selinus, in which the style of the metopes is graceful, but softer and weaker in composition and execution. In them the nude parts (faces and arms) of female figures are inserted in white marble, the rest being of coarse stone. (All the Selinus sculptures are now in Palermo.)
Many examples of archaic sculpture have been discovered in Boeotia, mostly showing the characteristics of a local school; but a grave relief of a draped man,
 |
| Fig. 5. Apollo, from Orchomenus. (Atheus.) |
In the development of the rendering of the nude male figure, the influence of the various athletic games, and of erecting statues of victors in the contests, can hardly be over-estimated. The first portraits of this sort are said to have beendedicated at Olympia about 540 B.C., but some are recorded earlier elsewhere, e. g. of Arrachion at Phigaleia, who was victor about 560 B.C., of a most primitive type from its description by Pausanias. But of course the statue need not in all cases be as old as the victory. These statues were doubtless at first mere reproductions of the conventional male type, not to be distinguished from the “Apollo” statues, but a specialisation of the type for various kinds of athletes, and even individual portraits followed: Pliny says that the last were only permitted to those who had been thrice victors. Throughout the course of Greek history the class of athletic statues was especially, but not exclusively, associated with the schools of Argos and Sicyon. In the later archaic period Sicyon is represented by Canacauts, who made the bronze statue of Apollo [p. 2.703]at Branchidae, carried off by Xerxes (or Darius). Cicero quotes his works as “rigidiora quam ut imitentur veritatem,” and harder than those of Calamis. Canachus' brothel. Aristocles founded a school of sculptors of athletes that lasted seven generations.
At Argos, Chrysothemis and Eutelidas, who made athlete statues about 520 B.C., assert in an in scription that they belong to a regular school. But the best known early Argive artist was Ageladas, famous as the master of Phidias, Polycleitus, and Myron. He made statues of gods as well as of athletes: his artistic activity was prolonged, over an extensive period, from the end of the sixth to the middle of the fifth century or even later; but his style we can only infer from his influence on others. The Argive type was transmitted to and perfected by Polycleitus; but Phidias seems to have added under this influence a Doric earnestness to the Ionic grace of Attic sculpture, and Myron to have developed a different athletic ideal. Other Argive artists are Glaucus and Dionysius, who made some great groups at Olympia, including an allegorical one of the founder of the games amidst a group of deities and personifications.
The place of Aegina in sculpture seems to be like its geographical position, intermediate between Argos and Athens. Its artists were of wide reputation inearly times, and worked at Olympia, Athens, and elsewhere, as well as in their own island. Their favourite material was the Aeginetan bronze. Smilis ( “the carver” ), the earliest Aeginetan artist, is by many regarded as a purely mythical character, like Daedalus, with whom he is sometimes associated; but others regard him as a historical character, quoting. the name of Stesichorus as analogous. The Xoanon of Hera at Samos was attributed to him. In historical times Callon and Onatas are the most prominent names. They flourished about the beginning of the fifth century. Gallon is said to have been a pupil of Tectaeus and Angelion, who themselves were pupils of the Cretan Dipoenus and Scyllis, and who made the statue of Apollo at Delos. Thus we have two traditional connexions with the primitive sculpture of Samos and Delos. Callon's style is said by Quintilian to be harder than that of Calamis. Onatas worked in many places, and several important statues of divinities by him were known to Pausanias. At Olympia he made a group of the heroes before Troy casting lots; and another of the fall of the lapygian king Opis, for the Tarentines. This last is very similar in subject to the pediments from Aegina now in Munich. Other distinguished artists of Aegina were Glazukias and Anaxagoras, both of whom worked at Olympia, the former for Gelo of Syracuse and others, and the latter for a common dedication by the Greeks after the battle of Plataea. Even in ancient times, some writers note the distinction between the Aeginetan and Attic styles, as the two best known types of archaic sculpture. he pediments from Aegina, though architectural works and so of marble, not of bronze, supply the most certain evidence as to the Aeginetan style. The composition is not adapted to fill the given field by decorative means, as in the much earlier pediments of the Ionic style, but by a symmetrical and graduated arrangement of the figures. Both pediments are of similar composition, portraying the fight over a fallen warrior in the centre, by warriors standing and kneeling, the corners being filled with other wounded men (fig. 6). The admirable and sculpturesque
 |
| Fig. 6. Fallen warrior, from Aegina. |
Thus it is easy to trace the influence otherwise probably of Aegina upon some classes of Attic sculpture. The influence of athletic sculpture was felt also in Athens, where there was another set of sculptors representing a different tendency from the development of the Ionic style already mentioned. These are Antenor and Critius and Nesiotes. Antenor was employed to make the statues of the Tyrannicides Harmodius and Aristogeiton which were carried off by Xerxes, and replaced by others by Critius and Nesiotes. These statues have been identified on Athenian coins and reliefs, and .hence in two marble statues at Naples. It is uncertain whether these reproduce the originals by Antenor or those later made to replace them; but both may probably have represented the same motive. The very fine, but dry and sinewy treatment of the body is remarkable, and more advanced than the treatment of the face (in the one remaining head), drapery, and hair--exactly the reverse of what we find in the Ionic-Attic style. Here may be mentioned also Hegias, said to have been the first master of Phidias; he is coupled by Quintilian with the Aeginetan Callon, as harder in style than Calamis.
After these names follow those of the immediate predecessors of Phidias, who belong to the next period. In all the great centres of art local styles and predilections as to subject had already been produced; and it was their rapid development that led up to the great sculpture of the fifth century.
The year 480 B.C., here adopted as the conclusion of the archaic period, forms a convenient boundary. On the one hand, the Persian wars mark the beginning of a new era in Greek art as in Greek history; on the other the expedition of Xerxes has in its material results afforded us the most certain criteria for fixing the age of later archaic and transitional works. On the Acropolis at Athens he defaced all works of art, and the fragments that remained were buried by the Athenians on their return, and [p. 2.704]replaced by new works, thus affording scope to the artists of the time. But the buried fragments have been recovered, and when pieced together give us an excellent notion of the condition of sculpture immediately before the Persian wars. The same discovery may well be made on other sites that suffered a similar fate. Thus the circumstances of our knowledge as well as the historical crisis make this a fit point at which to review briefly the archaic period, and afterwards to notice the advances that immediately followed.
We have seen that, according to tradition, sculpture took its rise, so far as Greece is concerned, among the islands, Samos, Chios, and Crete; and that it spread on the one hand through Asia Minor, the Aegean Islands, Northern Greece, and Attica, in what we may conveniently name the softer or Ionic style; while on the other hand the Cretan artists had scholars in the Peloponnese, Central Greece, and elsewhere: in most of these regions we find a harder style, which may be named Doric; but even here we sometimes find Ionic artists employed. The two styles concentrated themselves in Argos, Sicyon, and Aegina on the one hand, and in Athens on the other. Towards the close of the archaic period they seem, while retaining their essential characteristics, to have influenced each other to a considerable extent.
(For details as to artists of this period and their works, see Dict. Biog. and Myth.:--Corinth--Butades (Dibutades). Samos--Rhoecus, Theodorus, Telecles. Chios--Melas, Micciades, Archermus, Bupalus, Athenis. Crete--Dipoenus, Scyllis; their scholars, Tectaeus and Angelion. Athens--Simmias, Endoeus, Aristion, Aristocles, Antenor, Amphicrates, Critius and Nesiotes. Magnesia--Bathycles. Sparta--Hegylus, Theocles, Dontas, Dorychdias, Gitiadas. Rhegium--Clearchus. Sicily--Perillus. Aegina--Smilis, Callon, Onatas, Glaucias, Anaxagoras, Calliteles. Argos--Eutelidas and Chrysothemis, Ageladas, Aristomedon, Glaucus and Dionysius. Sicyon--Canachus, Aristocles. Elis--Callon.)
3. 480 B.C--400 B.C. Greek Fifth Century.
From this period onward it is less necessary to give any connected account, because the style and works of individual artists are far more prominent and better known; and for all such matters the articles in the Dict. of Biog. and Myth. must be consulted. Here will be found only such facts of this kind as serve to indicate relation or connexion of different artists and schools, and such notices of extant works as concern more than the individual artists to whom they are assigned.During the previous period we found all styles of sculpture nearing the perfection of technical development; and we also found that all the artistic centres of Greece had already adopted their own speciality. Hence, in the fifth century, though Aegina disappears in art as in history, Argos and Sicyon remain, as before, noted for athlete statues in bronze, Athens for the variety of its artists and for the use of marble. It was now possible for great artists to express their ideas without the subordination to the difficulties of technical execution, or the constant struggling with those difficulties, that had hitherto been visible even in the highest attainments of sculpture. The attainment of a complete mastery over material difficulties prepared the way for the highest attainments of Greek art. Among the works of this period we meet for the first time with statues that are spoken of with unqualified admiration by classical writers, as of the highest excellence, and not merely interesting for their ancient period or the advance they show on previous attempts. This rapid advance in sculpture corresponds with a similar advance in literature and in thought and feeling, which leads up to the great century of Greece. The expeditions and defeat of the Persians had completely altered the relation of the Greeks to neighbouring peoples. For the ancient nations of the East, vaguely heard of as of unknown power, skill, and wisdom, were substituted the Persians, whom the Greeks hated and could conquer. Hence the feeling of Panhellenic unity, and of the conscious superiority of the Greeks as a race above all other people known to them. The numerous monuments erected from the spoils of the Persians or in commemoration of their defeat gave a new stimulus to all the arts, and the contest itself afforded subjects for both historical and allegorical representation. And in Athens, at least, the constitution was peculiarly favourable for the production of the greatest works; the democratic form of government encouraged that idealisation of the people without which its exploits could not be worthy of the highest artistic commemoration, while the actual predominance of such men as Cimon and Pericles gave the originality, greatness, and continuity of design which a purely popular government could not attain. Moreover, the combination of the Greeks in common dedications, and the successive supremacy of various cities, made larger sums available for artistic expenditure than could have been afforded by isolated states or individuals.
The fittest places for common national dedications were
 |
| Fig. 7. Apollo, from Temple of Zeus. (Olympia.) |
Before considering the great architectural sculptures, made under the direction of Phidias, which are the most characteristic surviving specimens of the art of the fifth century, three artists must be mentioned who are, as it were, the forerunners of the highest period,--Calamis and Myron, who both belong to Athens, and Pythagoras of Rhegium (previously of Samos). Calamis, as has been said, seems to represent the highest development of the grace and delicacy of treatment properly belonging to the Attic development of the Ionic style, and he is chosen out by Lucian for the expression of face (σεμνὸν καὶ λεληθὸς μειδίαμα, in which we may perhaps see the last relic of the archaic smile) and for the treatment of drapery. Copies of statues by him have been recognised on an altar at Athens. Myron inherits the vigour of the athletic Attic school of Critius and Nesiotes; but as a pupil of Ageladas he also fell under Argive influence. Several extant statues after Myron, reproductions of the famous Discobolus (see Vol. I. p. 644) and the Marsyas, show how completely he had mastered the difficulties of technique. His works even transgress the bonds of sculpturesque treatment in their choice of momentary attitudes and even of contortions,--a natural reaction against the rigidity of early works in the first consciousness of artistic freedom. Myron had scholars in Athens, who seem to have carried these tendencies still farther, and to have selected subjects for the sake of the difficulty or interest of the execution,--the first appearance of “genre” sculpture. The cow by Myron himself, one of the most famous statues of antiquity, seems to belong to the same class of works.
Pythagoras, like Myron, was fond of representing figures in vigorous movement; he also excelled in athlete portrait statues. He is praised by Pliny for symmetry and variety, and he also sought truth to nature in details such as the veins and muscles and hair: his limping Philoctetes was famous for the indication of the effect of his wounded foot on all parts of the body and limbs. Except on gems, no certain copy of a statue by Pythagoras survives, though the attribution to him of extant works, such as the “Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo” in the British Museum (an athlete statue), has been suggested.
Athens was at this time the chief centre of artistic work, and the beautifying of the city, first by Cimon and afterwards by Pericles, attracted foreign artists and encouraged native ones. The delicacy and grace of the Attic-Ionic style was carried to its highest point by Calamis; but Myron and Phidias both studied under Ageladas of Argos, and we find the influence of the Doric schools working strongly in Athens; e. g. in a marble head of an athlete and in one of a girl, both on the Acropolis at Athens. It has been suggested that Polygnotus of Thasos, who made many paintings in Athens, may have renewed the N. Ionic influence.
The architectural sculptures of Athens give a good notion of the state of art at this period; they are still to be seen, partly on the Parthenon, the Theseum, the Erechtheum, the temple of Wingless Victory, partly in the Museums of Athens and London. The sculptures of the Parthenon fall into three divisions--the metopes, the pediments, and the continuous inner frieze, which runs round the outside of the cella. It is probable that these three were put up in the order mentioned; and the style is consistent with this supposition. The metopes are of uneven merit, and some of them are the least advanced of the Parthenon sculptures, though others are of the most spirited design. The east pediment represented the birth of Athena; the west, her contest with Poseidon for the land: the surviving statues of these pediments are perhaps the finest works of sculpture extant. The continuous frieze is in very low relief, and shows the most perfect mastery of composition and technique; it represents the Panathenaic procession, horsemen, chariots, men, and women, advancing to the assembly of the gods above the east door. There is no especial reason for attributing the architectural sculptures of the Parthenon to Phidias, who is known to have made the chryselephantine statue within the temple, except that he is said to have had the general superintendence of the works of this period in Athens; the Parthenon sculptures show the excellence of those who worked under him. The Theseum sculptures consist of ten metopes at the east front and four on each of the sides adjoining; they show an angular, athletic style which may probably be attributed to the school of Myron; they resemble some of the earlier metopes of the Parthenon. The other two friezes of the Theseum, over the second row of columns at the back and front, though continuous, seem to divide themselves into groups derived from the Parthenon metopes. Thus the Theseum and Parthenon seem to be almost contemporary; the Parthenon was probably built between 447 and 434 B.C. The Erechtheum, as it now stands, was later; we [p. 2.706]know from inscriptions that it was still unfinished in 409 B.C.: a great feature of this building is the portico borne by six Caryatids; the Ionic frieze was of white marble figures attached to a background of black Eleusinian marble--a substitute for a coloured background. The temple of Wingless Victory is most famous for its balustrade, with figures of Athena and winged Victories erecting trophies, &c.; they must belong to the close of the fifth century, and show the most beautiful studies of flowing draperies as an accompaniment and background to the figures. But it was not only in temples and public monuments that the perfection of sculpture showed itself at Athens. The influence spread even to the workmen who made tombstones; so that early in the fourth century we find numerous grave-reliefs, votive offerings, headings of decrees, &c., that recall by their style the great period of sculpture of the end of the fifth century.
Outside Athens, Athenian artists were sometimes employed at this time; thus the temple of Bassae near Phigaleia was built by Ictinus, the architect of the Parthenon; and so we may probably see in the frieze of that temple (now in London) the work of his associates. The subjects are the combats with Amazons and Centaurs; but the execution shows an inequality partly due to provincial style; and there is a striving after effect, especially in the treatment of drapery, that seems transitional to the next period.
Similar characteristics may be seen in several other works of this period or slightly later--the acroteria of the temple at Delos, the earlier of the temple sculptures at Epidaurus (both in Athens), the so-called Nereid monument from Xanthus in Lycia (now in London), and the reliefs of a tomb at Djölbaschi in Lycia (now in Vienna); but in the pictorial and effective treatment of these works some prefer to see the continuous Ionic tradition, rather than Attic influence. (A similarity is also visible in the Victory at Olympia by Paeonius, of the Ionic colony of Mende in Thrace. If he also made the eastern pediment at Olympia, it must have been under very different influence.)
So far works of architectural sculpture have been considered, because they alone survive to show us the style of the Phidian school. But these are only indirectly to be assigned to the master himself or his most distinguished pupils. The great works of which they most carefully superintended the execution were the colossal temple statues of gold and ivory [see CHRYSELEPHANTINA], such as the Zeus at Olympia and the Athena Parthenos at Athens by Phidias, always regarded in antiquity as the highest attainments of sculpture [see cut on p. 316 a]. These rich materials were in the fifth century regarded as the most fitting for the execution of great statues of divinities, which embodied a national ideal. The difficulty of technique as well as the expense--the gold alone of the Athena was worth £155,000--prevented the possibility of such works except under favourable circumstances, and in the fifth century alone we find an art with a mastery over material difficulties adequate for the production of such colossal works, and also possessing so noble an ideal of the gods it strove to represent.
Though the Attic school had so wide-spread and so varied an influence, that of the Argive Polycleitus was also of the utmost importance; and the narrower
 |
| Fig. 8. Doryphorus, after Polycleitus. (Naples.) |
(For this period, see Dict. Biog. and Myth.: Calamis, Myron, Pythagoras; Paeonius of Mende, Phidias, Cimon, Pericles, Polygnotus, Mys. School of Calamis--Praxias, Androsthenes. School of Phidias--Alcamenes, Agoracritus, Colotes, Thrasymedes, Theocosmus. School of Myron--Lycius, Styppax, Cresilas, Strongylion. Athens--Callimachus, Demetrius, Pyrrhus, Socrates, Niceratus, Phyromachus (Pyromachus), Dinomenes. Argos and Sicyon--Polycleitus, Aristides, Canachus, Periclytus, Antiphanes, Patrocles, Daedalus, Naucydes, Alypus, Polycleitus (younger), Phradmon. Peloponnese--Apellas, Nicodamus, Cleoetas, Aristocles. Megara--Callicles, Telephanes.)
4. 400 B.C.--320 B.C. Greek Fourth Century.
During this period we find that much more depends on the individual character and predilections of the various artists; there is a [p. 2.707]tendency, both in choice of subject and in execution, rather to give free scope to the imagination and skill of the artist than to employ him to embody in his works any national ideals or aspirations. The artist was thus more free from any considerations or influences not purely artistic; but already in the fifth century art had risen above the trammels of priestcraft, even in the case of religious sculpture; and it was not an unmixed advantage for the sculptor to be free to work from his own imagination, rather than from those ideals which belonged to the race or the city. Thus in the place of great works like the Olympian Zeus, the Athena Parthenos, or the Hera of Argos, we meet in the fourth century with subtly distinguished impersonations such as the Eros, Pothos, and Himeros of Scopas, or the half-human beings of the cycle of Dionysus. Even groups of subordinate divinities before represented, like the Graces, as embodying some attributes of Zeus or other great divinities, are changed to attendants of the cycle of Aphrodite, and treated accordingly. Again, instead of truly sculpturesque representations of permanent character (ἦθος), we notice renderings of more transient passions or excitements (πάθη), as in the raving Maenad of Scopas--subjects obviously not so well adapted to sculpture, though perhaps exhibiting more the skill of the artist.As might be expected from the freedom and importance of individual artists, we find less limit than before in the number of the schools where artists were trained, and of the centres of their activity. Athens and Argos or Sicyon still remain important, but there are many notable artists who belong to neither; and the statues produced alre scattered all over the Hellenic world. Thus Scopas was a native of Paros, and worked in his early years in the Peloponnese, and later in many parts of Asia Minor. The two greatest artists of this period were Scopas and Praxiteles. Scopas, who was probably of Parian origin, and worked in the Peloponnese in his youth and in Asia in his later years, introduced the representation of passionate subjects which afterwards was developed in Pergamus and Rh odes.
Praxiteles represents the highest attainment of the Attic school of marble sculpture, and is famous for the most beautiful forms, as Phidias for the noblest ideals, of Greek sculpture.
 |
| Fig. 9. Head by Scopas, from Tegea. (Athens.) |
From the nature of the period, it follows that most of the sculpture surviving which can be assigned to it with certainty may be found under the names of the sculptors: but it should be here stated that recent discoveries have added to these works. Thus there are in Athlens two heads (fig. 9) and other fragments from the pediments made by Scopas for the temple of Athena Alea at Tegea, and the basis of the statue of Apollo at Mantinea by Praxiteles, with
 |
| Fig. 10. Satyr, after Praxiteles. (Rome, Capitol.) |
 |
| Fig. 11. Head of Niobe. (Florence.) |
(fig. 11) belong to this period. Pliny mentions a doubt whether they were by Praxiteles or Scopas; this probably means merely that Roman tradition assigned them to the age when these two masters flourished.
Lysippus of Sicyon continued the traditions of the school of Polyclitus; he modified the “canon,” so as to make the head smaller in proportion, and the body more slender. These characteristics [p. 2.708]may be seen in his Apoxyomeos (fig. 12). To his school are also attributed certain inventions that imply a tendency towards realism on the one side, and purely academic work on the other--the making of casts from statues, and also the working up of casts made from the living model, both attributed to Lysistratus, brother of Lysippus.
 |
| Fig. 12. Apoxyomenos, after Lysippus. (Rome, Vatican.) |
Towards the close of this period, the personality of Alexander begins to dominate the art of sculpture. But the influences visible in sculpture were very complicated; and the younger Attic school carried the softness of Praxiteles to an extreme, while elsewhere athletic works tended to harden into anatomical studies; but all these tendencies only developed during the succeeding period.
But besides these tendencies, which ultimately led to the decline of art, we find some artists striving to retain the higher ideals of the fifth century; the most notable is Damophon of Messene, who seems in his choice of subjects and of materials to be influenced by the school of Phidias. Thus he may also be regarded as the first instance of a great artist who consciously imitated the style of an earlier period. Fragments of a group by him have been found at Lycosura in Arcadia, and are now in Athens.
(For details concerning sculptors of this period, see Dict. Biog. and Myth. Paros--Xenophon, Scopas; Mausoleum, Leochares, Bryaxis, Timotheus, Pythis. Athens--Cephisodotus, Polycles, Euclides, Praxiteles, Cephisodotus the younger, Timarchus, Sthennis, Silanion, Zeuxiades, Apollodorus, Polycrates, Euphranor, Polymnestus, and Cenchramus. Sicyon--Lysippus, Lysistratus, Daippus, Euthycrates, Tisicrates, Xenocrates. Messene--Damophon. Thebes--Hypatodorus and Aristogiton.)
5. 320 B.C.--150 B.C. Hellenistic; Asiatic Schools.
The political change which marks the beginning of this period had a great influence upon the history of art as of literature. The conquests of Alexander and their subsequent division opened up the East to Greek enterprise and it is the new and flourishing cities which thus arose into prominence that form the great art centres of the next period,--Pergamus, Rhodes, Tralles, Ephesus, Alexandria, Antioch: some of these were not of course new cities, but a new era began for all of them with the age of Alexander. In the case of sculpture, the influence of Alexander was in part direct and personal, in part indirect. The numerous portraits of Alexander by Lysippus and his followers, in all characters and surroundings, led to a modification of the customary type of face so remarkable that many heads of this period have been misnamed Alexander from their resemblance to him, though the artist probably was merely representing the ordinary type of his school. And other personalities, mostly of the successors of Alexander, came to have almost as great an influence for a time. The courts of these Greek kings in Asia and Egypt formed the chief centres of literature and art, and sculptors as well as others worked under their patronage. Under such influences art strove to make up by the colossal scale of its works and the dramatic effect of its expression for the grandeur and simplicity that were lost; and academic study led to eclecticism, so that we recognise in works of this period methods and characteristics of various earlier schools, united or confused. On the other hand, the artificial life of courts and cities induced a craving for primitive simplicity, which found expression on the one hand in pastoral literature, and in some reliefs with country scenes, under pictorial influence; on the other in representations of child life, which now are more frequently rendered with truth to nature, as in the statue of a boy struggling with a goose, by Boethus.It is an indication of the time that the Rhodians, when they had repelled an invasion, did not seek to honour their god by a statue expressing the national ideal, but to glorify him by erecting the biggest statue known--the colossus of the Sun-god by Chares, a pupil of Lysippus, who thus is associated with the new tendencies. A great statue of Victory from Samothrace (in Paris) was erected by Demetrius Poliorcetes about 300 B.C.; it shows a spirited treatment, but all the straining after effect.that marks the Hellenistic period. But Pergamus was the most important art centre, and the victories of the Greek kings over the Gauls (or Galatians) afforded occasions and subjects for great dedicatory groups. To the period of Attalus I., 241-197 B.C., are to be assigned several statues and groups of Gauls, dying or killing themselves; the best known being the Dying Gaul of the Capitol at Rome. Attalus I. also dedicated statues in bronze, half life-size, of contests both between Greeks and Gauls, Persians, or Amazons, and gods and giants on the Acropolis at Athens, of which marble copies exist in many museums. Under Eumenes II., 197-159 B.C., was erected the great altar at Pergamus, ornamented with reliefs of the battle of gods and giants (now in Berlin): this, with its struggles, contortions, and dramatic.expressions of excitement or pain, is the great example of this style (fig. 13). In the pathetic and dramatic rather than sculpturesque nature of subject and style in all these works we may see the ultimate development of the expression of passion and emotion in marble which Scopas introduced into Asia Minor. An even more extreme instance may be seen in the Laocoon, made by Agesandros of Rhiodes and his companions; another famous group is the Farnese bull, or punishment of Dirce, by Apollonius and Tauriscus of Tralles. Fine specimens of the development of athlete sculpture in the Hellenistic period may be seen in the bronze statue of a boxer found recently [p. 2.709]in Rome; and a head of another, also in bronze, at Olympia. All these works, and especially those of the Pergamene school, deserve from their spirited conception and treatment to be
 |
| Fig. 13. Athena and Giant, from great altar at Pergamus. (Berlin.) |
 |
| Fig. 14. Lacoon. (Rome, Vatican.) |
The next period is assigned to Graeco-Roman art, but some of the artists who belong to it chronologically may be here mentioned, because they seem to carry on the Hellenistic traditions.
 |
|
Fig. 15. Aphrodite, from Melos. (From Murray,
Ancient Sculpture. ）
|
There is, for instance, an Ephesian family of artists of about 100 B.C., well known for their statues of fighting warriors, especially the socalled Borghese Gladiator (in Paris) by Agasias, which is unsurpassed as an anatomical study, and a statue from Delos by Menophilus. These may be regarded as the last products of the athletic school of Lysippus, though already contemporary with the beginnings of Graeco-Roman sculpture.
(See Dictionary of Biog. & Myth.: Alexander, Ptolemaeus, Attalus, Eumenes. Pergamus--Phyromachus, Stratonicus, Antigonus. Rhodes--Chares, Timocharis, Phyles, Sosipater, Mnasitimus and Teleson, Agesandrus, Polydorus, and Athenodorus. Asia Minor--Apollonius, Tauriscus, Apollodorus, Menophilus, Dositheus, Agasias. Other artists--Eutychides, Cantharus, Boethus. Other names in this and the succeeding period, for the most part associated only with isolated works, need not be quoted here.)
150 B.C.--312 A.D. Graeco-Roman and Roman.
The sack of Corinth 146 B.C.--or, roughly, the middle of the second century--may be regarded as the beginning of the Graeco-Roman era; the era, that is, when Greek artists no more worked either for their art or for their own people, but in order to please the tastes of their conquerors. But it was not only the art of the time that was affected; for from the beginning of this period all the best known works of art already existing were collected at Rome from all quarters, and at the end of it transferred to Constantinople in great numbers; and, thus collected together in great centres, they were more liable to accidents or to wholesale destruction than if scattered in quiet local centres of worship. Obviously no great or original schools are to be looked for in this period; but among the numerous independent Greek artists who worked either in Greece or Rome for the Roman market, some few stand out as of wider influence. |
| Fig. 16. Orestes and Electra, by Stephanus. (Naples.) |
Among these are Arcesilaus and Pasiteles, who both lived in the first century B.C. Arcesilaus is said to have sold his proplasmata at higher prices than finished works by others commanded. Of Pasiteles and his scholars, Stephanus and Menclaus, we possess some extant works (fig. 16) which show that he attempted to imitate the severe style of the athlete sculptors of the fifth century. But the majority of sculptors during this period were employed in meeting the enormous demand for sculpture to decorate baths, gymnasia, villas, &c., by the production not so much of original works as of copies of all the favourite statues that had been made by Greek artists of all previous periods,--a process of the utmost importance to us; for now that nearly all the originals have been lost or destroyed, it is this class of copies that now fills the museums of Europe, and more especially of Italy. In addition to copies of statues, sculptors of this age also reproduced as separate works figures from well-known groups or reliefs, and even signed these as the artist, as in the case of the “Farnese” Heracles by Glycon, a type originally belonging to the Hellenistic age. Only one branch of sculpture can be said to have had an independent development under Roman influence. Individual and naturalistic portraits had been made in the school of Lysippus, and were continued through the Hellenistic age; such commemoration of the individual was peculiarly pleasing to Roman taste, and Roman portrait statues and busts, especially of the great historical characters of the Augustan age and of the earlier emperors, are of unequalled excellence in their life-like execution and portrayal of personal character.
In the age of the Emperor Hadrian, who was a great patron of the arts, some revival may be noticed; this is especially associated with the portraits of Antinous, the favourite of the emperor, whose type of face and figure dominates the art of this period almost as those of Alexander dominated that of the Hellenistic age. But after this brief revival, the decline of the art of sculpture was even more rapid than before, until it began a new era in Byzantine times. Under the emperors, sculpture was called upon to commemorate historical events, and especially victories over the barbarians. The reliefs of the Column of Trajan are the finest of these, and represent with spirit and truth to fact the incidents of a Roman campaign. The Column of Antoninus is already very inferior in conception and execution. The various triumphal arches in Rome offered a wide field for decorations of this nature, and in those which still survive it is easy to trace the decline of sculpture from the age of Augustus to that of Constantine. Another favourite field for decoration, in Roman times, was offered by the sculptured Sarcophagi, which were covered with reliefs of historical and mythical subjects. The earlier among these show good design and workmanship; but in the later we can see the complete decay of all artistic power and feeling.
A few words may be added as to the preservation and survival of examples of ancient sculpture, and the classes into which they may be divided. When there was no care for the preservation of works of art, either among barbarous invaders or among those in whose possession [p. 2.711]they remained, it is obvious that only an accident could preserve any statue which was of an intrinsically valuable material, such as bronze or other metal; and though marble statues were not exposed to so great danger, they were constantly burnt for lime or broken up and used for building material. We may roughly assert that the statues that survive owe their preservation to one of three causes--either they were purposely secreted by their worshippers or admirers, as was the case with the Hermes of Praxiteles at Olympia and the Aphrodite of Melos; or they were accidentally buried amidst the ruins of the buildings that contained them, whether by a sudden destruction, or a gradual decay,--this is the chance that has preserved most of the statues that are recovered by excavation; or they have remained in a conspicuous position, and have been protected by some reverence or superstition, probably mistaken in its origin: thus the bronze statue of Marcus Aurelius on the Capitol was religiously preserved through the dark ages because it was supposed to represent Constantine. In studying the history of ancient sculpture, it is very important to estimate correctly the value of the monumental evidence, and to understand the exact relation of extant statues to the artist or school with which they are associated. I:n this aspect we may divide all the works of ancient sculpture that survive into four classes, as follows:--
(1) Originals: that is to say, statues, actually made by the artist to whom they are assigned; but we may here distinguish--(a) Originals from the hand of known artists; such works of art, as they executed themselves, and which thus show the perfection of their style and execution. Such works are very rare: the Hermes of Praxiteles is the finest example. (b) Works such as architectural sculptures, which were doubtless designed by some great sculptor, but of which the execution must have been left to assistants; in these, of course, great inequality of execution may be expected. (c) Works made in the period and by the artists of the school to which they must be assigned; but merely reproducing the ordinary character and types of that school, by the hand of inferior sculptors or mere artisans: these may vary from very high excellence to careless and inferior work. The best example is offered by the Attic grave reliefs.
(2) Copies, as faithful as the artist could make them, from originals by earlier sculptors: to this class belong the great majority of the statues in European museums, and especially in Rome and Italy. These vary very much both in the carefulness of their execution and in their faithfulness to the original from which they are derived. A great deal depends on the period and school of the copyist; if he is not far removed in period or style from the artist who made his original, his copy may very accurately reproduce its character: a Greek copyist is more likely to reproduce the style and spirit of his original, while one of Roman times is more likely to be accurate in the reproduction of details and accessories. Thus the characteristics of the school and period to which the copy must be assigned must always be taken carefully into consideration before any inferences are drawn as to the original from which it is derived.
(3) Works of Artists who studied or imitated the style of an earlier period. If these artists succeed completely in catching the spirit and style of the period they study, their works may be difficult to distinguish from those of an earlier period; but in most cases they cannot entirely free themselves from the influences that surround them: thus though in the Aphrodite of Melos we see the noble forms and broad treatment of the fifth century, in the artificial arrangement of the drapery the spirit of the Hellenistic age betrays itself. Sometimes we find later artists not merely seeking inspiration from the ideals of an earlier age, but imitating the characteristics of particular schools, as was the case with Pasiteles and his associates, who sometimes even made copies that must be assigned to the second class.
 |
| Fig. 17. Dedication to Apollo Citharoedus. (Berlin.) |
(4) Archaistic works: that is to say, works that imitate the mannerisms and details of execution of the archaic period; it is of course possible for this class in some cases to overlap the last: but the name “archaistic” is commonly applied to more mechanical works, made with an affectation of primitive characteristics. This affectation is introduced either from hieratic influence for dedications; or on decorative principles, the archaic stiffness supplying a conventionality suitable to such use; or, at a late period, from a mere seeking after the quaint or uncouth. Archaistic works must be carefully distinguished from authentic copies of archaic works of art, though sometimes they show the same characteristics as these. In a few cases it is possible to doubt whether a work is really archaic or archaistic, but it is rare to find an archaistic work so free from exaggeration of the mannerisms and quaintnesses of archaic works that any confusion is possible. Thus, in archaistic works the figures walk on tiptoe, and the floating ends of drapery are worked into the stiffest of conventional zigzags, and even curved up in an impossible manner; while in really archaic works, though in some details conventionality may be seen, yet we can also see the attempt of the artist to render nature so far as is possible within the limits of his power of expression. The maker of an archaistic work also betrays himself often by a later treatment of some details, as in the Athena at Dresden, in which, though the folds of the drapery are stiff and conventional, the designs on the border are worked with perfect freedom. But:the distinction [p. 2.712]always extends beyond details, and the earnest attempt of an early artist to do his best is totally different from the affected mannerisms of a later imitator.
[On special periods or artists, the works published are too numerous to quote, but the following books contain a general treatment of the subject:--Brunn, Geschichte der griechischen Künstler, Brunswick, 1853, and Stuttgart, 1859 (the second edition, Stuttgart, 1889, is a mere reprint); Overbeck, Die antiken Schriftquellen zur Geschichte der bildenden Künste, Leipzig, 1868 (classical authorities have not been quoted in this article, as they may all be found in this book); Overbeck, Geschichte der griechischen Plastik, 3rd edit., Leipzig, 1881-2; Mitchell, History of Ancient Sculpture, London, 1883 (excellent for references to the literature of the subject); Murray, History of Greek Sculpture, London, 1880-3; Perry, History of Greek Sculpture, London, 1882; Paris, La Sculpture antique, Paris, 1888; Loewy, Inschriften griechischer Bildhauer, Leipzig, 1885. See also the articles on Sculptors and Sculpture in Baumeister, Denkmäler des classischen Alterthums, Leipzig, 1885-8.]
[E.A.G]