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.)
|
of the Ephesian Artemis, with sculptured columns, some of
them dedicated by Croesus (specimens of both these are in the
British Museum); the frieze from the temple of Assos in the Troad
(now mostly in the Louvre). A similar character may be noticed in
some early Lycian sculptures, probably under Ionic
influence--especially the Harpy monument (in the British Museum),
and also in works found in some of the islands, and even the N.W. of
Greece. Instances are a tombstone relief of a man and a dog (in
Naples) from Asia Minor or an island; another tombstone, with a
seated lady, a child and attendant (called
Ino
Leucothea, in the Villa Albani at Rome), also from the
same region; a relief with Apollo, Hermes and the nymphs from Thasos
(in the Louvre), and various tomb reliefs from Thessaly (mostly in
Athens). All these works have some characteristics in common, which
may be shortly described as softness and laxity of style, as opposed
to the hard and precise sculpture of the Peloponnesian schools.
Perhaps
 |
|
Fig. 2. Winged figure by Archermus. (Athens.)
|
[p. 2.701]we may see also the influence of painting
in the excellence of composition and general impression, combined
with many inadequacies and even carelessness in details, which is
often found in the sculpture of Northern Greece and the islands. The
artists of the Ionic coast and islands doubtless travelled and
exercised a wide influence. It is recorded that the Chian
Archermus worked at Delos, and a pedestal has
been discovered, with his name and that of his father,
Micciades, to which belongs almost certainly, a
female flying figure of very primitive style (fig. 2). It is
recorded that
Archermus was the first to represent
Victory with wings, and here is probably the very statue in which he
did this. The name of
Archermus, inscribed in a
different alphabet, occurs also on a base on the Acropolis at
Athens; in the same place the names of
Endocus,
Aristocles, and many other artists, probably Ionians, have
been found. The Ionic influence in Athens is clearly visible in some
early architectural sculptures found on the Acropolis, cut in rough
stone and entirely coloured. These are mostly the pediments of early
temples, and represent in low or high relief the combats of Heracles
or Zeus with fish-tailed or snake-tailed monsters--Triton, as at
Assos, Typhon, the Hydra, &c., whose tails conveniently fill
the angles of the pediment, while the bodies show the heavy and
sometimes grotesque forms characteristic of Asiatic Ionic art. The
most important series of statues of early Attic art are a set of
female figures (similar to others found in Delos and elsewhere),
most of which were found in a position where they must have been
buried just after the Persian invasion, and there-fore date from the
period immediately preceding it, say about 550-480 B.C. In these it
is
 |
|
Fig. 3. Head of statue on Acropolis, Athens.
|
possible to trace the gradual development of Attic style,
from the rude figures with stiff drapery and grimacing smile
inherited from Ionic art, to the graceful drapery and
“unconscious” smile noted by Lucian as
characteristics of
Calamis, the
representative of this Ionic-Attic school in the fifth century. (The
most advanced head of this type is represented in fig. 3.) Such
female statues, often dedicated in sacred precincts and representing
either a goddess or her worshipper, are the ultimate development of
the type first seen in the primitive draped female statuettes found
on early Greek sites, and often, doubtless, of foreign origin. A
corresponding nude male type was developed into the series of
statues commonly called “Apollo,” and known by the
place where they were found,--the
Apollo of Thera, of
Tenea (fig. 4), &c.
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.)
|
and
Scyllis, and to have
developed the combination of wood-carving and inlaying into
chryselephantine sculpture. The works of this nature by
Theocles, Dontas, and
Doryclidas
were preserved in the treasury of the Megarians and in the Heraeum
at Olympia, and some of them were extensive groups. Even into
Laconia Ionic influence also penetrated;
Bathycles of
Magnesia was employed to make a “throne” for the
Apollo of Amyclae, already referred to. This
throne must, from the description, have been a kind of carved screen
surrounding the statue, ornamented with mythological scenes and
statues, including “portraits” of the artist and his
assistants.
Gitiadas of Sparta, whose date relative
to the other artists just mentioned is uncertain, made the statue
and decorated the temple of Athena Chalcioecus at Sparta; its walls
were covered with bronze reliefs of mythological subjects. Perhaps
he may represent the Doric style of such decoration, as
Bathycles does the Ionic; both were to be seen in
the treasury of the Sicyonians at Olympia.
Gitiadas
made also statues of Aphrodite and Artemis “under
tripods,” corresponding to another made by
Callon of Elis, and this fact is of importance for
his chronology.
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.)
|
signed by
Alxenor of Naxos, shows that here
also the influence of Asia Minor and the islands was not unknown; it
shows pictorial treatment and remarkable foreshortening. But other
works seem to show an independent local style, developing from the
most primitive types, as seen in the
grave relief of Dermys
and Citylus, two roughly-shaped male figures, with long
hair and no drapery, standing with their backs against a slab and
their arms round one another's necks. The most important Boeotian
works are a set of nude male statues of the so-called
“Apollo” type; the
Apollo of Orchomenus
(fig. 5) has a stolid expression and careful but exaggerated surface
rendering of muscles and skin. Several other statues showing similar
but more advanced style have been found in the temple of Apollo
Ptous. These all show a roundness of waist and conical shape of
chest that contrast with Ionic statues. The latest of them has a
grimacing smile, perhaps due to Attic or Aeginetan influence, and
the forms of the body also approach the Aeginetan style. Similar
characteristics may be seen in the Strangford Apollo in the British
Museum.
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.
|
rendering of all details and the careful study of the nude
male form recall the athletic schools. The remains of the east
pediment, though more scanty, are the better finished both in
details, such as the rendering of veins and in expression of face,
the conventional smile being retained but modified; it has been
suggested with probability that it was executed by a younger artist,
who had to carry out the original design. The names of both
Gallon and
Onatas have been found
on bases on the Acropolis at Athens.
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.)
|
the great religious centres, Olympia and Delphi. Olympia
was also noted for the great temple of Zeus, built by the Eleans
themselves; both its architectural forms and historical evidence
show that it was probably completed about 460 B.C.; and the extant architectural sculptures must be
assigned to this period; they consist of metopes over the internal
columns of the front and back, representing the labours of Heracles
(partly in the
[p. 2.705]Louvre, partly at Olympia),
the east pediment with the preparations for the chariot-race of
Pelops and Oenomaus, and the west pediment with the battle between
the Lapiths and Centaurs. Pausanias ascribes these two pediments to
Paeonius and
Alcamenes respectively; and, as Alcamenes is said to
have been a pupil of
Phidias,
difficulties have arisen, both as to chronology and as to style.
Alternative explanations are that Pausanias was mistaken, or that
the pediments were early works, before Alcamenes came under the
influence of Phidias. All the sculptures of the temple, beside
certain defects of detail that may be due to local execution, show a
peculiar style, which is perhaps due to a combination of various
influences. They show a breadth and freedom of pictorial composition
that contrast strongly with the strict symmetry of the Aegina
pediments; but in the execution there is none of the precision and
delicacy that mark those groups. The uncertainty of line and
carelessness or awkwardness of details must have been remedied to
some extent by colour; and the distant effect was more considered
than sculptural accuracy. Archaic hardness is thus avoided, and a
softness and laxity takes its place. In composition, the pediments
are symmetrical, but not monotonously so; they show in many ways an
advance towards the perfection we see in the Parthenon; the front or
east pediment is quiet, the back or west one full of groups in
contorted motion: they have been to a great extent recovered, and
are now at 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.)
|
and more definite nature of his attainments made them more
open to the imitation of subsequent artists than the lofty ideals of
Phidias. Many extant works have been recognised as copies of known
works of Polycleitus, the
Diadumenus,
the
Dosryphorus, the
wounded Amazon,
&c. It is characteristic of the definite nature of his
attainments that he fixed a canon of bodily proportions, which he
also embodied in a statue, probably the
doryphorus; and this canon was accepted by the athlete
sculptors of the schools of Argos and Sicyon as fixing a type, till
afterwards Doryphorus, after Polycleitus. modified by Euphranor and
Lysippus. In details of execution, and especially in the treatment
of bronze, his favourite material, Polycleitus is said to have
excelled even Phidias; but there was a certain monotony in the
conception and even the pose of his works. Though his athletic
statues and his canon are his best known works, and most important
for their influence on later art, it must not be forgotten that
Polycleitus fixed the type of Hera by his chryselephantine statue in
the Heraeum at Argos, just as Phidias did those of Zeus and Athena.
His school, in Argos and also in Sicyon, numbered many important
artists, who seemed to have followed their master closely, and to
have held to their traditions with more tenacity than any other
school in Greece.
(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.)
|
a relief of Apollo Marsyas and the Muses, and above all
the Hermes of Praxiteles at Olympia. These are original works, and
so superior to the numerous late copies in various museums from the
works of these artists. (One of these, a copy of the Faun of
Praxiteles, is reproduced in fig. 10.) For the
Mausoleum sculptures, by Scopas and other artists
(now in London), see
sub voc. In London also
are some of the sculptured columns from Ephesus, one of which is
recorded to have been carved by Scopas, and the seated statue of
Demeter from Cnidus, the Mater Dolorosa of
ancient sculpture. The group of the Niobids of which copies exist in
Florence and elsewhere
 |
|
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.)
|
their spirited conception and treatment to be ranked among
the greatest achievements of
 |
|
Fig. 14. Lacoon. (Rome, Vatican.)
|
sculpture, though the selection of subjects marks a period
of decadence. But some artists still strove to retain the noble
ideals and simplicity and breadth of treatment of an earlier time;
and the result may be seen in the
Aphrodite of Melos,
which must be assigned to this period. Sometimes the same tendency
led to a cold and academic treatment, as may be seen in works like
the
Apollo Belvedere and the
Artemis of the
Louvre. The tendency to local personifications must also
be noticed; the first and best known instance is the statue of
Antioch by Eutychides, another scholar of
Lysippus.
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. ）
|
[p. 2.710]
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]
