VI A HISTORY OF GREEK ART. NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PAKIHENOV, RESTORED. (From Fenger, " Dorische Polychromie," PI. II.) A History of Greek Art With an Introductory Chapter on Art in Egypt and Mesopotamia BY F. B. TARBELL PROFESSOR OF CLASSICAL ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO Weto Ifork THE MACMILLAN COMPANY LONDON: MACMILLAN & CO., LTD. 1907 All rights reserved COPYRIGHT, 1896, BY FLOOD & VINCENT. Set up and electrotyped elsewhere. Reprinted August, 1902' March, 1904; March, June, 1905; January, March, 1906: October, 1907. Norton oD Berwick ft Smith, Norwood, MMI., U.S.A. PREFACE. THE art of any artistically gifted people may be studied with various purposes and in various ways. One man, being himself an artist, may seek inspiration or guidance for his own practice ; another, being a student of the history of civilization, may strive to com- prehend the products of art as one manifestation of a people's spiritual life ; another may be interested chiefly in tracing the development of artistic processes, forms, and subjects ; and so on. But this book has been written in the conviction that the greatest of all motives for studying art, the motive which is and ought to be strongest in most people, is the desire to become acquainted with beautiful and noble things, the things that "soothe the cares and lift the thoughts of man." The historical method of treatment has been adopted as a matter of course, but the emphasis is not laid upon the historical aspects of the subject. The chief aim has been to present characteristic specimens of the finest Greek work that has been preserved to us, and to suggest how they may be intelligently enjoyed. Fortu- nate they who can carry their studies farther, with the help of less elementary handbooks, of photographs, of casts, or, best of all, of the original monuments. Most of the illustrations in this book have been made from photographs, of which all but a few belong to the collection of Greek photographs owned by the Uni- versity of Chicago. A number of other illustrations have been derived from books or serial publications, as may be seen from the accompanying legends. In iii iv Preface. several cases where cuts were actually taken from secondary sources, such as Baumeister' s ' ' Denkmaler des klassischen Altertums," they have been credited to their original sources. A few architectural drawings were made expressly for this work, being adapted from trustworthy authorities, viz.: Figs. 6, 51, 61, and 64. There remain two or three additional illustrations, which have so long formed a part of the ordinary stock-in- trade of handbooks that it seemed unnecessary to assign their origin. The introductory chapter has been kindly looked over by Dr. J. H. Breasted, who has relieved it of a number of errors, without in any way making himself responsible for it. The remaining chapters have un- fortunately not had the benefit of any such revision. In the present reissue of this book a numb2r of slight changes and corrections have been introduced. Chicago, January, 1905. CONTENTS. CHAPTER PAGK I. ART IN EGYPT AND MESOPOTAMIA . . 15 II. PREHISTORIC ART IN GREECE .... 47 III. GREEK ARCHITECTURE 77 IV. GREEK SCULPTURE GENERAL CON- SIDERATIONS 113 V. THE ARCHAIC PERIOD OF GREEK SCULP- TURE. FIRST HALF : 625 (?)~5 50 B.C. 127 VI. THE ARCHAIC PERIOD OF GREEK SCULP- TURE. SECOND HALF : 550-480 B. C. 143 VII. THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD OF GREEK SCULPTURE. 480-4506. C 160 VIII. THE GREAT AGE OF GREEK SCULPTURE. FIRST PERIOD : 450-400 B. C. ... 184 IX. THE GREAT AGE OF GREEK SCULPTURE. SECOND PERIOD : 400-323 B. C. . . . 215 X. THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD OF GREEK SCULPTURE. 323-146 B. C 243 XI. GREEK PAINTING . 268 ILLUSTRATIONS. Northwest Corner of the Parthenon, Restored . . Frontispiece. FIGURE. PAGE. 1. The Great Sphinx and the Pyramids of Cheops and Chephren. Gizeh 17 2. The "Sheikh-el-Beled." Gizeh Museum 20 3. Ra-nofer. Gizeh Museum 21 4. Cross-legged Scribe. Paris, Louvre 23 5. Head of Nefert. Gizeh Museum 24 6. " Proto-Doric " Column. Beni-hasan 25 7. Temple of Luxor, Restored 26 8. View through Hypostyle Hall. Karnak 27 9. Column of Hypostyle Hall. Karnak 28 10. Column of Medinet Habu 29 11. Bronze Statue of Horus. Paris, Louvre 31 12. Bas-relief. Abydos 32 13. Wall-Painting. Thebes 34 14. Portrait Head. Berlin 35 15. Statue of Gudea. Paris, Louvre 36 16. Head, from Tello. Paris, Louvre 37 17. Assyrian Relief. London, British Museum 39 1 8. Assyrian Relief. Paris, Louvre 40 19. Winged Bull. Paris, Louvre 41 20. Assyrian Relief. London, British Museum .... 43 21. Wounded Lioness. London, British Museum ... 44 22 Citadel of Tiryns 49 23. Gallery in the Eastern Wall. Tiryns 50 24. Portion of Citadel Wall. Mycenae 51 25. The Lion Gate. Mycenae 52 26. Section of " Treasury of Atreus " 53 27. Interior of " Treasury of Atreus " 54 28. Ceiling of Tomb-Chamber at Orchomenus, Restored. 55 29. Alabaster Frieze from Tiryns, Restored 57 30. Wall-Fresco from Tiryns 58 31. Primitive Statuettes from the Greek Islands. Lon- don, British Museum 59 vii viii Illustrations. FIGURE. PAGE. 32. Gravestone from Mycenae. Athens, National Mu- seum 60 33. Relief above the Lion Gate. Mycenae 62 34. Gold Ornament 63 35. Gold Ornament 63 36. Silver Cow's Head. Athens, National Museum . . 64 37. Fragment of Silver Vase. Athens, National Mu- seum 65 38. Inlaid Dagger-Blade. Athens, National Museum . 66 39. Two Gold Cups. Athens, National Museum ... 68 40. 41. Engraved Gems from Mycenae 70 42. Vases of Mycenaean Style 71 43. Vases (Silver, Terra-cotta, and Alabaster) and Statu- ettes from Mycenae 72 44. Dipylon Vase, with Details 73 45. Plate from Rhodes. British Museum 75 46. Greek Method of Building a Wall 79 47. Plan of Small Temple. Rhamnus 80 48. Plan of Temple of Wingless Victory. Athens. . . 81 49. Plan of Temple at Priene 82 50. Plan of Parthenon. Athens 83 51. Corner of a Doric Facade 84 52. West Front of the Temple of Athena, Restored. yEgina 86 53. Fragment of Sima, with Lion's Head. Athens, Acropolis Museum 87 54. Half of Anta-Capital of the Athenian Propylaea, with Color Restored 88 55. Hawk's-beak Molding, Colored 89 56. East Front of the Parthenon, Restored and Dis- sected 90 57. Temple of Posidon (?). Paestum 91 58. Columns of the Temple of Zeus. Nemea 92 59. Early Doric Capital from Selinus 93 60. Late Doric Capital from Samothrace 93 61. Corner of an Ionic Facade 94 62. Capital from Temple of Wingless Victory. Front View 95 63. Capital from Temple of Wingless Victory. Side View 95 Illustrations. ix FIGURE. PAGE. 64. Ionic Corner Capital, as Seen from Below 96 65. Entablature and Upper Part of Column from the Mausoleum. British Museum 97 66. Order of the Erechtheum, East Portico 98 67. The Erechtheum, from the East, Restored 99 68. Anta-Capital and Wall-Band, from the Erechtheum. British Museum 99 69. The North Portico of the Erechtheum 100 70. Temple of Wingless Victory. Athens 101 71. Ionic Capital from Samothrace 102 72. Corinthian Capital from Epidaurus 103 73. Corinthian Capital from the Choragic Monument of Lysicrates. Athens 104 74. Theater. Epidaurus in 75. Copy of a Caryatid of the Erechtheum. Rome, Vati- can Museum 116 76. Head of the Farnese Athena. Naples 122 77. Archaic Female Figure from Delos. Athens, Na- tional Museum 128 78. "Apollo " of Thera. Athens, National Museum . . 130 79. "Apollo " of Tenea. Munich 132 80. Archaic Pediment-Figures. Athens, Acropolis Mu- seum 133 81. Head Belonging to an Archaic Pediment-Group. Athens, Acropolis Museum 134 82. Male Figure Carrying a Calf. Athens; Acropolis Museum 135 83. Seated Figures from Miletus. London, British Mu- seum 136 84. Metope from Selinus. Palermo 137 85. Archaic Victory (?) from Delos. Athens, National Museum 139 86. Lower Part of Archaic Sculptured Column from Ephesus. London, British Museum 141 87. Relief from the " Harpy " Tomb. London, British Museum 145 88. Grave-Monument of Aristion. Athens, National Museum 146 89. Archaic Female Figure. Athens, Acropolis Mu- seum 148 Illustrations. FIGURE. PAGE. 90. Statue by Antenor (?). Athens, Acropolis Museum. 149 91. Archaic Female Figure. Athens, Acropolis Museum. 150 92. Upper Part of Archaic Female Figure. Athens, Acropolis Museum 151 93. Archaic Female Figure. Athens, Acropolis Mu- seum 152 94. Fragment of Archaic Female Figure. Athens, Acropolis Museum 153 95. Fragment of Archaic Female Figure. Athens, Acropolis Museum 154 96. Head of a Youth. Athens, Acropolis Museum . . . 155 97. Fragment of Frieze from the Treasury of the Siphni- ans. Delphi 156 98. Figures from the Western Pediment of the ^ginetari Temple. Munich 156 99. Dying Warrior from the Eastern Pediment of the ^Eginetan Temple. Munich 157 100. Strangford "Apollo." London, British Museum. 158 101. Harmodius and Aristogiton. Naples 161 102. Relief on a Marble Throne. Broom Hall, near Dun- fermline, Scotland 163 103. " Apollo on the Omphalos." Athens, National Mu- seum 165 104. Copy of the Discobolus of Myron. Rome, Lancellotti Palace 167 105. Bust, probably after Myron. Florence, Riccardi Palace 170 106. Satyr, probably after Myron. Rome, Lateran Mu- seum 171 107. Portion of Doric Frieze with Sculptured Metopes, from Selinus. Palermo 172 108. CEnomaus and Sterope. Olympia 173 109. Elderly Man. Olympia 174 no. Head of Apollo. Olympia 175 in. Lapith Bride and Centaur. Olympia 176 112. Lapith and Centaur. Olympia 177 113. Atlas Metope. Olympia 179 114. Head of Athena (?), from Lion Metope. Olympia. . 180 115. The Giustiniani "Vesta." Rome, Torlonia Palace. 181 116. The " Spinario. " Rome, Palace of the Conservatori. 182 Illustrations. xi 117. Bronze Coin of Elis (enlarged) 186 118. Reduced Copy of the Athena of the Parthenon. Athens, National Museum 187 119. Athena. Dresden . 188 120. Head of Athena. Bologna 189 121. Parthenon Metope. London, British Museum . . . 191 122. Parthenon Metope. London, British Museum . . . 191 123. Parthenon Metope. London, British Museum . . . 192 124. Portion of Slab of Parthenon Frieze (east). Athens, Acropolis Museum 193 125. Slab of Parthenon Frieze (north). Athens, Acropo- lis Museum 194 126. Portions of Two Slabs of Parthenon Frieze (north). London, British Museum 195 127. Heads of Chariot-Horses, from Parthenon Frieze (south). London, British Museum 196 128. So-called "Theseus" of the Parthenon. London, British Museum 197 129. Group of Pediment-Figures from the Parthenon. London, British Museum ' . 198 130. So-called " Ilissos " of the Parthenon. London, British Museum 198 131. Head of Pericles. London, British Museum .... 199 132. Caryatid from the Erechtheum. London, British Museum 201 133. ' Relief of a Victory. Athens, Acropolis Museum . . 202 134. Grave-Relief of Hegeso. Athens, Dipylon Cemetery 203 135. Attic Grave-Relief. Rome, Villa Albani 204 136. Relief representing Orpheus, Eurydice, and Hermes. Naples 205 137. Copy of the Doryphorus of Polyclitus. Naples . . 207 138. Bronze Copy of the Head of the Doryphorus. Naples 208 139. Head of a Boy, after Polyclitus. Dresden 209 140. Wounded Amazon, perhaps after Polyclitus. Berlin. 210 141. Head from the Argive Herseum. Athens, National Museum 211 142. The "Idolino." Florence, Archaeological Museum . 212 143. Victory of Paeonius. Olympia 213 144. Victory of Paeonius, Restored 214 145. Head from Tegea. Athens, National Museum ... 216 xil Illustrations, FIGURE. PAGE. 146. Head of Meleager. Rome, Villa Medici 217 147. Head of a Goddess. Athens, National Museum . . 218 148. Eirene and Plutus. Munich 219 149. Hermes, by Praxiteles. Olympia 220 150. Head and Body of the Hermes of Praxiteles. Olympia 221 151. Copy of the Head of the Aphrodite of Cnidus. Ber- lin, in private possession 224 152. Copy of the Apollo Sauroctonos. Rome, Vatican Museum 225 153. Leaning Satyr. Rome, Capitoline Museum .... 226 154. Satyr Pouring Wine. Palermo 227 155. Relief from Mantinea. Athens, National Museum . 228 156. Artemis, called the Diana of Gabii. Paris, Louvre . 229 157. Niobe and a Daughter of Niobe. Florence, Uffizi . 230 158. A Son of Niobe. Florence, Uffizi 231 159. Mounted Amazon. Athens, National Museum . . . 232 160. Slab of Mausoleum Frieze. London, British Museum 233 161. Slab of Mausoleum Frieze. London, British Museum 233 162. Sarcophagus of " The Mourning Women." Constan- tinople 234 163. Sculptured Drum of Column from Ephesus. Lon- don, British Museum 236 164. Sophocles. Rome, Lateran Museum 237 165. Head of Zeus. Rome, Vatican Museum 238 166. Copy of the Apoxyomenos of Lysippus. Rome, Vatican Museum 240 167. Head of the Apoxyomenos 241 168. Head of Alexander. Paris, Louvre 242 169. Three Tanagra Figurines. London, British Museum 244 170. Three Tanagra Figurines. London, British Museum 245 171. The " Alexander " Sarcophagus. Constantinople . 246 172. Victory of Samothrace. Paris, Louvre 248 173. The Aphrodite of Melos. Paris, Louvre 250 174. The Apollo of the Belvedere. Rome, Vatican Mu- seum 252 175. Posidippus. Rome, Vatican Museum 253 176. Head of Homer. Naples 254 177. Seated Boxer. Rome, Museo delle Terme 255 178. Boy and Goose. Rome, Capitoline Museum .... 256 Illustrations. xiii 179. Tipsy Old Woman. Rome, Capitoline Museum . . 257 180. Praying Boy. Berlin 258 181. Hellenistic Relief. Vienna 259 182. Hellenistic Relief. Vienna 260 183. Dying Gaul. Rome, Capitoline Museum 261 184. Head of Dying Gaul 262 185. Group from the Altar of Pergamum. Berlin .... 263 186. Group from the Altar of Pergamum. Berlin .... 264 187. Laocoon and His Sons. Rome, Vatican Museum . . 265 188. The Francois Vase. Florence, Archaeological Mu- seum 269 189. Detail from the Francois Vase 270 190. Design from an Amphora of Execias. London, British Museum 272 191. Design from a Cylix of Euphronius. London, British Museum . . 274 192. Cylix. London, British Museum 275 193. Detail from a Painted Sarcophagus. Florence, Archaeological Museum 285 194. Portrait of a Man, from the Fayyum . 286 195. Portrait of a Girl, from the Fayyum 287 196. Portrait of a Young Woman, from the Fayyum . . . 288 A HISTORY OF GREEK ART. CHAPTER I. ART IN EGYPT AND MESOPOTAMIA. THE history of Egypt, from the time of the earliest extant monuments to the absorption of the country in the Roman Empire, covers a space of some thousands of years. This long period was not one of stagnation. It is only in proportion to our ignorance that life in ancient Egypt seems to have been on one dull, dead level. Dynasties rose and fell. Foreign invaders occu- pied the land and were expelled again. Customs, cos- tumes, beliefs, institutions, underwent changes. Of course, then, art did not remain stationary. On the con- trary, it had marked vicissitudes, now displaying great freshness and vigor, now uninspired and monotonous, now seemingly dead, and now reviving to new activity. In Babylonia we deal with perhaps even remoter periods of time, but the artistic remains at present known from that quarter -are comparatively scanty. From Assyria, however, the daughter of Babylonia, materials abound, and the history of that country can be written in detail for a period of several centuries. Naturally, then, even a mere sketch of Egyptian, Babylonian, and Assyrian art would require much more space than is here at dis- posal. All that can be attempted is to present a few examples and suggest a few general notions. The main purpose will be to make clearer by comparison and con- is 1 6 A History of Greek Art. trast the essential qualities of Greek art, to which this volume is devoted. I begin with Egypt, and offer at the outset a table of the most important periods of Egyptian history. The dates are taken from the sketch prefixed to the cata- logue of Egyptian antiquities in the Berlin Museum. In using them the reader must bear in mind that the earlier Egyptian chronology is highly uncertain. Thus the date here suggested for the Old Empire, while it cannot be too early, may be a thousand years too late. As we come down, the margin of possible error grows less and less. The figures assigned to the New Empire are regarded as trustworthy within a century or two. But only when we reach the Saite dynasty do we get a really precise chronology. Chief Periods of Egyptian History : OLD EMPIRE, with capital at Memphis ; Dynasties 4-5 (2800-2500 B. C. or earlier) and Dynasty 6. MIDDLE EMPIRE, with capital at Thebes ; Dynasties 11-13 (2200-1800 B. C. or earlier). NEW EMPIRE, with capital at Thebes ; Dynasties 17-20 (ca. 1600 nooB. C.). SAITE PERIOD ; Dynasty 26 (663-525 B. C). One of the earliest Egyptian sculptures now existing, though certainly nol^ earlier than the Fourth Dynasty, is the great Sphinx of Gizeh (Fig. i). The creature crouches in the desert, a few miles to the north of the ancient Memphis, just across the Nile from the modern city of Cairo. With the body of a lion and the head of a man, it represented a solar deity and was an object of worship. It is hewn from the living rock and is of colos- sal size, the height from the base to the top of the head 1 8 A History of Greek Art. being about 70 feet and the length of the body about 1 50 feet. The paws and breast were originally covered with a limestone facing. The present dilapidated condi- tion of the monument is due partly to the tooth of time, but still more to wanton mutilation at the hands of fanatical Mohammedans. The body is now almost shapeless. The nose, the beard, and the lower part of the head-dress are gone. The face is seamed with scars. Yet the strange monster still preserves a mys- terious dignity, as though it were guardian of all the secrets of ancient Egypt, but disdained to betray them. ' ' The art which conceived and carved this prodigious statue," says Professor Maspero,* "was a finished art ; an art which had attained self-mastery, and was sure of its effects. How many centuries had it taken to arrive at this degree of maturity and perfection ? " It is im- possible to guess. The long process of self-schooling in artistic methods which must have preceded this work is hidden from us. We cannot trace the progress of Egyp- tian art from its timid, awkward beginnings to the days of its conscious power, as we shall find ourselves able to do in the case of Greek art. The evidence is annihi- lated, or is hidden beneath the sand of the desert, per- haps to be one day revealed. Should that day come, a new first chapter in the history of Egyptian art will have to be written. There are several groups of pyramids, large and small, at Gizeh and elsewhere, almost all of which be- long to the Old Empire. The three great pyramids of Gizeh are among the earliest. They were built by three kings of the Fourth Dynasty, Cheops (Chufu), Chephren (Chafre), and Mycerinus (Menkere). They are gigan- tic sepulchral monuments, in which the mummies of the *" Manual of Egyptian Archaeology," second edition, 1895, page ao8. Art in Egypt and Mesopotamia. 19 kings who built them were deposited. The pyramid of Cheops (Fig-, i, at the right), the largest of all, was originally 481 feet 4 inches in height, and was thus doubtless the loftiest structure ever reared in pre- Christian times. The side of the square base measured 755 feet 8 inches. The pyramidal mass consists in the main of blocks of limestone, and the exterior was origi- nally cased with fine limestone, so that the surfaces were perfectly smooth. At present the casing is gone, and instead of a sharp point at the top there is a platform about thirty feet square. In the heart of the mass was the granite chamber where the king' s mummy was laid. It was reached by an ingenious system of passages, strongly barricaded. Yet all these precautions were in- effectual to save King Cheops from the hand of the spoiler. Chephren's pyramid (Fig. i, at the left) is not much smaller than that of Cheops, its present height being about 450 feet, while the height of the third of this group, that of Mycerinus, is about 210 feet. No won- der that the pyramids came to be reckoned among the seven wonders of the world. While kings erected pyramids to serve as their tombs, officials of high rank were buried in, or rather under, structures of a different type, now commonly known under the Arabic name of mastabas. The mastaba may be described as a block of masonry of limestone or sun- dried brick, oblong in plan, with the sides built ' ' batter- ing," z. <?., sloping inward, and with a flat top. It had no architectural merits to speak of, and therefore need not detain us. It is worth remarking, however, that some of these mastabas contain genuine arches, formed of unbaked bricks. The knowledge and use of the arch in Egypt go back then to at least the period of the Old Empire. But the chief interest of the mastabas lies in 20 A History of Greek Art. the fact that they have preserved to us most of what we possess of early Egyptian sculpture. For in a small, inaccessible cham- ber (serdab} re- served in the mass of masonry were placed one or more portrait statues of the owner, and of- ten of his wife and other members of his household, while the walls of an- other and larger chamber, which served as a chapel for the celebration of funeral rites, were often covered with painted bas-reliefs, representing scenes from the owner's life or whatever in the way of furTeral offer- ing and human activity could min- ister to his happi- ness. One of the best of the portrait statues of this period is the famous ' ' Sheikh-el- FIG. 2. THE "SHKIKH-EL-BELED." Beled ' (Chief of Gizeh Museum. the Village) , attrib- Art in Egypt and Mesopotamia, 21 uted to the Fourth or Fifth Dynasty (Fig. 2). The name was given by the Arab workmen, who, when the figure was first brought to light in the cemetery of Sakkarah, thought they saw in it the likeness of their own sheikh. The man' s real name, if he was the owner of the mastaba from whose serdab he was taken, was Ra-em-ka. The figure is less than life-sized, being a little over three and one half feet in height. It is of wood, a common material for sculpture in Egypt. The arms were made . separately (the left of two pieces) and attached at the shoulders. The feet, which had decayed, have been restored. Originally the figure was covered with a coating of linen, and this with stucco, painted. "The eyeballs are of opaque white quartz, set in a bronze sheath, which forms the eyelids ; in the center of each there is a bit of rock-crystal, and behind this a shining nail"* a contrivance which produces a marvel- *Musee de Gizeh: Notice Sommaire (1892). FIG. 3. RA-IIOFER. Gizeh Museum. 22 A History of Greek Art. ously realistic effect. The same thing, or something like it, is to be seen in other statues of the period. The attitude of Ra-em-ka is the usual one erf Egyptian stand- ing figures of all periods : the left leg is advanced ; both feet are planted flat on the ground ; body and head face squarely forward. The only deviation from the most usual type is in the left arm, which is bent at the elbow, that the hand may grasp the staff of office. More often the arms both hang at the sides, the hands clenched, as in the admirable limestone figure of the priest, Ra-nofer (Fig. 3). The cross-legged scribe of the Louvre (Fig. 4) illus- trates another and less stereotyped attitude. This figure was found in the tomb of one Sekhem-ka, along with two statues of the owner and a group of the owner, his wife, and son. The scribe was presumably in the employ of Sekhem-ka. The figure is of limestone, the commonest material for these sepulchral statues, and, according to the unvarying practice, was completely covered with color, still in good preservation. The flesh is of a reddish brown, the regular color for men. The eyes are similar to those of the Sheikh-el-Beled. The man is seated with his legs crossed under him ; a strip of papyrus, held by his left hand, rests upon his lap ; his right hand held a pen. The head shown in Fig. 5 belongs to a group, if we may give that name to two figures carved from sepa- rate blocks of limestone and seated stiffly side by side. Egyptian sculpture in the round never created a gen- uine, integral group, in which two or more figures are so combined that no one is intelligible without the rest ; that achievement was reserved for the Greeks. The lady in this case was a princess ; her husband, by whom she sits, a high priest of Heliopolis. She is dressed in a long, white smock, in which there is no indication Art in Egypt and Mesopotamia. 23 of folds. On her head is a wig, from under which, in front, her own hair shows. Her flesh is yellow, the conventional tint for women, as brownish red was for men. Her eyes are made of glass. The specimens given have been selected with the purpose of showing the sculpture of the Old Empire at its best. The all- important fact to notice is the realism of these portraits. We shall see that Greek sculp- ture throughout its great period tends toward the typical and the ideal in the human face and figure. Not so in Egypt. Here FIG. 4. CROSS-LEGGED SCRIBE. Paris, Louvre. the task of the artist was to make a counterfeit presentment of his sub- ject and he has achieved his task at times with marvelous skill. Especially the heads of the best statues have an individuality and lifelikeness which have hardly been surpassed in any age. But let not our admiration blind us to the limitations of Egyptian art. The sculptor never attains to freedom in the posing of his figures. Whether the subject sits, stands, kneels, or squats, the body and head always face directly forward. And we A History of Greek Art. look in vain for any appreciation on the sculptor's part of the beauty of the athletic body or of the artistic pos- sibilities of drapery. There is more variety of pose in the painted bas-re- liefs with which the walls of the mastaba, chapels are covered. Here are scenes of agriculture, cattle-tending, fishing, bread-making, and so on, represented with ad- mirable vivac- ity, though with certain fixed conventionali- ties of style. There are end- less entertain- ment and in- struction for us in these pictures of old Egyptian life. Yet no more here than in the portrait statues do we find a feeling for beauty of form or a po- etic, idealizing touch. As from the Old Empire, so from the Middle Empire, almost the only works of man surviving to us are tombs and their contents. These tombs have no longer the simple mastaba form, but are either built up of sun-dried brick in the form of a block capped by a pyramid or are excavated in the rock. The former class offers little interest from the architectural point of view. But some FIG. 5. HEAD OF NEFERT. Gizeh Museum. Art in Egypt and Mesopotamia. of the rock-cut tombs of Beni-hasan, belonging to the Twelfth Dynasty, exhibit a feature which calls for men- tion. These tombs have been so made as to leave pil- lars of the living rock standing, both at the entrance and in the chapel. The simplest of these pillars are square in plan and somewhat tapering. Others, by the chamfering off of their edges, have been made eight-sided. A repe- tition of the process gave sixteen-sided pillars. The sixteen sides were then hol- lowed out (channeled). The result is illustrated by Fig. 6. It will be observed that the pillar has a low, round base, with beveled edge ; also, at the top, a square abacus, which is simply a piece of the original four- sided pillar, left untouched. Such polygonal pillars as these are commonly called proto-Doric columns. The name was given in the belief that these were the models from which the Greeks de- rived their Doric columns, FIG. 6.-" PROTO-DORIC" COLUMN. an d this belief is still held Beni-hasan. , , . . by many authorities. With the New Empire we begin to have numerous and extensive remains of temples, while those of an earlier date have mostly disappeared. Fig. 7 may 26 A History of Greek Art, afford some notion of what an Egyptian temple was like. This one is at Luxor, on the site of ancient Thebes in Upper Egypt. It is one of the largest of all, being over 800 feet in length. . Like many others, it was not orig- inally planned on its present scale, but represents two or three successive periods of construction, Ramses II., of the Nineteenth Dynasty, having given it its final form by adding to an already finished building all that now stands before the second pair of towers. As so ex- tended, the building has three pylons, as they are FIG. 7. TEMPLE OF LUXOR, RESTORED. (From Perrot and Chipiez, "Art in Ancient Egypt," Vol. I., Fig. 218.) called, pylon being the name for the pair of sloping- sided towers with gateway between. Behind the first pylon comes an open court surrounded by a cloister with double rows of columns. The second and third pylons are connected with one another by a covered passage an exceptional feature. Then comes a second open court ; then a hypostyle hall, /. e. , a hall with flat roof supported by columns ; and finally, embedded in the midst of various chambers, the relatively small sanctuary, inaccessible to all save the king and the priests. Notice the double line of sphinxes flanking the avenue of approach, the two granite obelisks at the en- trance, and the four colossal seated figures in granite representing Ramses II. all characteristic features. Art in Egypt and Mesopotamia. 27 Fig. 8 is taken from a neighboring and still more gigantic temple, that of Karnak. Imagine an immense hall, 170 feet deep by 329 feet broad. Down the middle FIG. 8. VIEW THROUGH HYPOSTYLE HALL. Karnak. run two rows of six columns each (the nearest ones in the picture have been restored), nearly seventy feet high. They have campaniform (bell-shaped) capitals. 28 A History of Greek Art. On either side are seven rows of shorter columns, some- what more than forty feet high. These, as may be indistinctly seen at the right of our picture, have capi- tals of a different type, called, from their origin rather than from their actual appearance, lotiform or lotus- bud capitals. There was a clere- story over the four central rows of columns, with windows in its walls. The general plan, therefore, of this hypostyle hall has some resem- blance to that of a Christian basil- ica, but the columns are much more numerous and closely set. Walls and columns were covered with hieroglyphic texts and sculptured and painted scenes. The total effect of this colossal piece of archi- tecture, even in its ruin, is one of overwhelming majesty. No other work of human hands strikes the beholder with such a sense of awe. Fig. 9 is a restoration of one of the central columns of this hall. Except for one fault, say Messrs. Perrot and Chipiez,* " this column FIG. 9. COLUMN OF HY- would be one of the most admirable (From Perrot and Chipiez, "Art in Ancient Egypt," be inferior to the most perfect col- Vol. II., Fig. 80.) umns of Greece. ' ' The one fault a grave one to a critical eye is the meaningless and inappropriate block inserted between the capital and *" Histoire de I'Art : Egypte," page 576. The translation given above dif- fers from that in the English edition of Perrot and Chipiez, " Art in Ancient Egypt," Vol. II., page 123. Art in Egypt and Mesopotamia. 29 the horizontal beam which it is the function of the col- umn to support. The type of column used in the side aisles of the hall at Karnak is illustrated by Fig. 10, taken from another temple. It is much less admirable, the contraction of the capital toward the top producing an unpleasant effect. Other specimens of these two types of col- umn vary widely from those of Karnak, for Egyptian architects did not feel obliged, like Greek architects, to con- form, with but slight lib- erty of deviation, to estab- lished canons of form and proportion. Nor are these two by any means the only forms of sup- port used in the temple architecture of the New Empire. The " proto- Doric" column continued in favor under the New Empire, though appar- ently not later ; we find it, for example, in some C.C, (From Perrot and Chipiez, "Art Ancient Egypt," Vol. ii., Fig. 7 8.) o f t h e ou tlying buildings FIG. 10. COLUMN OF MEDINET HABU. Chipie: A>1. II., at Karnak. Then there was the column whose capital was adorned with four heads in relief of the goddess Hathor, not to speak of other varieties. Whatever the precise form of the support, it was always used to carry 3O A History of Greek Art. a horizontal beam. Although the Egyptians were familiar from very early times with the principle of the arch, and although examples of its use occur often enough under the New Empire, we do not find columns or piers used, as in Gothic architecture, to carry a vaulting. In fact, the genuine vault is absent from Egyptian temple architecture, although in the Temple of Abydos false or corbelled vaults (ef. page 49) do occur. Egyptian architects were not gifted with a fine feeling for structural propriety or unity. A few of their small temples are simple and coherent in plan and fairly taste- ful in details. But it is significant that a temple could always be enlarged by the addition of parts not contem- plated in the original design. The result in such a case was a vast, rambling edifice, whose merits consisted in the imposing character of individual parts, rather than in an organic and symmetrical relation of parts to whole. Statues of the New Empire are far more numerous than those of any other period, but few of them will compare in excellence with the best of those of the Old Empire. Colossal figures of kings abound, chiseled with infinite patience from granite and other obdurate rocks. All these and others may be passed over in order to make room for a statue in the Louvre (Fig. n), which is chosen, not because of its artistic merits, but because of its material and its subject. It is of bronze, somewhat over three feet in height, thus being the largest Egyptian bronze statue known. It was cast in a single piece, except for the arms, which were cast sep- arately and attached. The date of it is in dispute, one authority assigning it to the Eighteenth Dynasty and another bringing it down as late as the seventh century B. C. Be that as it may, the art of casting hollow Art in Egypt and Mesopotamia. bronze figures is of high antiquity in Egypt. The figure represents a hawk-headed god, Horus, who once held up some object, probably a vase for libations. Egyptian divinities are often represented with the heads of ani- mals Anubis with the head of a jackal, Hathor with that of a cow, Sebek with that of a crocodile, and so on. This in itself shows a lack of nobility in the popular theology. Moreover it is clear that the best talents of sculptors were engaged upon portraits of kings and queens and other human be- ings, not upon figures of the gods. The latter exist by the thousand, to be sure, but they are generally small statuettes, a few inches high, in bronze, wood, or faience. And even if sculptors had been encouraged to do their best in bodying forth the forms of gods, they would hardly have achieved high suc- cess. The exalted imagination was lacking. Among the innumerable painted bas-reliefs covering the walls of tombs and temples, those of the great Temple of Abydos in Upper Egypt hold a high place. One enthusiastic art critic has gone so far as to pronounce them ' 'the most per- fect, the most noble bas-reliefs ever chiseled. ' ' A specimen of FIG. ii. BRONZE STATUE OF HORUS. this work, now, alas ! more de- Paris, Louvre. , , , . , , . (From Perrot and Chipiez, " Art in Ancient faced than is here shown, is Egypt," Vol. i.. Fig. 44 .) A History of Greek Art. given in Fig. r 2. King Seti I. of the Nineteenth Dynasty stands in an attitude of homage before a seated divinity, FIG. 12. BAS-RELIEF. Abydos. (From Perrot and Chipiez, "Art in Ancient Egypt," Vol. I., PI. III.) of whom almost nothing appears in the illustration. On the palm of his right hand he holds a figure of Maat, Art in Egypt and Mesopotamia. 33 goddess of truth. In front of him is a libation-standard, on which rests a bunch of lotus flowers, buds, and leaves. The first remark to be made about this work is that it is genuine relief. The forms are everywhere modeled, whereas in much of what is commonly called bas-relief in Egypt, the figures are only outlined and the spaces within the outlines are left flat. As regards the treat- ment of the human figure, we have here the stereotyped Egyptian conventions. The head, except the eye, is in profile, the shoulders in front view, the abdomen in three- quarters view, the legs again in profile. As a result of the distortion of the body, the arms are badly attached at the shoulders. Furthermore the hands, besides being very badly drawn, have in this instance the ap- pearance of being mismated with the arms, while both feet look like right feet. The dress consists of the usual loin-cloth and of a thin, transparent over-garment, indi- cated only by a line in front and below. Now surely no one will maintain that these methods and others of like sort which there is no opportunity here to illustrate are the most artistic ever devised. Nevertheless serious technical faults and shortcomings may coexist with great merits of composition and expression. So it is in this relief of Seti. The design is stamped with unusual re- finement and grace. The theme is hackneyed enough, but its treatment here raises it above the level of com- monplace. Egyptian bas-reliefs were always completely covered with paint, laid on in uniform tints. Paintings on a flat surface differ in no essential rqspect from these painted bas-reliefs. The conventional and untruthful methods of representing the human form, as well as other objects buildings, landscapes, etc. are the same in the for- mer as in the latter. The coloring, too, is of the same 34 A History of Greek Art. sort, there being no attempt to render gradations of color due to the play of light and shade. Fig. 13, a lute- player from a royal tomb of the Eighteenth Dynasty, illustrates some of these points. The reader who would form an idea of the compo- sition of exten- sive scenes must consult works more especially devoted to Egyptian art. He will be re- war d e d with many a vivid picture of ancient Egyp- tian life. Art was at a low ebb in 588 Egypt during FIG. 13. WALL-PAINTING. Thebes. the Centuries of (From Perrot and Chipiez, "Art in Ancient Egypt." T : t. _, j Vol. ii., Fig. 270.) Libyan and Ethiopian dom- ination which succeeded the New Empire. There was a revival under the Saite monarchy in the seventh and sixth centuries B. C. To this period is assigned a superb head of dark green stone (Fig. 14), recently acquired by the Berlin Museum. It has been broken from a standing or kneeling statue. The form of the closely-shaven skull and the features of the strong face, wrinkled by age, have been reproduced by the sculptor with unsurpassable' fidelity. The number of works emanating from the same school as this is very small, Art in Egypt and Mesopotamia. 35 but in quality they represent the highes^ development of Egyptian sculpture. It is fit that we should take our leave of Egyptian art with such a work as this be- fore us, a work which gives us the quintessence of the artistic genius of the race. Babylonia was the seat of a civilization perhaps more hoary than that of Egypt. The known remains | of Babylonian art, however, are at pres- ent far fewer than those of Egypt and will probably always be so. There being practically no stone in the country and wood being very scarce, buildings were constructed entirely of bricks, some of them merely sun- dried, others kiln- baked. The natural wells of bitumen sup- plied a tenacious mor- tar.* The ruins that have been explored at Tello, Nip- pur, and elsewhere, belong to city walls, houses, and temples. The most peculiar and conspicuous feature of FIG. 14. PORTRAIT HEAD. Berlin. * Compare Genesis XI. 3 : " And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar." A History of Greek Art. the temple was a lofty rectangular tower of several stages, each stage smaller than the one below it. The arch was known and used in Babylonia from time im- memorial. As for the ornamental details of buildings, we know very little about them, except that large use was made of enameled bricks. The only early Babylonian sculptures of any conse- quence that we possess are a col- lection of broken reliefs and a dozen sculptures in the round, found in a group of mounds called T e 1 1 o and now in the Louvre. The reliefs are ex- tremely rude. The statues are much better and are there- fore probably of later date ; they are commonly assigned by students of Babylonian antiqui- ties to about 3000 B. C. Fig. 15 repro- duces one of them. The material, as of the other statues found at the same place, is a dark and excessively hard igneous rock (dolerite}. The person represented is one Gudea, the ruler of a small semi- independent principality. On his lap he has a tablet on which is engraved the plan of a fortress, very interest- FIG. 15. STATUE OF GUDEA. Paris, Louvre. Art in Egypt and Mesopotamia. 37 ing to the student of military antiquities. The forms of the body are surprisingly well given, even the knuckles of the fingers being indicated. As regards the drapery, it is noteworthy that an attempt has been made to ren- der folds on the right breast and the left arm. The skirt of the dress is covered with an inscription in cune- iform characters. Fig. 1 6 belongs to the same group of sculptures as the seated figure just discussed. Al- though this head gives no such im- pression of lifelike- ness as the best Egyptian portraits, it yet shows careful study. Cheeks, chin, and mouth are well rendered. The eyelids, though too wide open, are still good ; notice the inner corners. The eyebrows are less successful. Their general form is that of the half of a figure 8 bisected vertically, and the hairs are indicated by slanting lines arranged in herring- bone fashion. Altogether, the reader will probably feel more respect than enthusiasm for this early Baby- lonian art, and will have no keen regret that the speci- mens of it are so few. FIG. 16. HEAD, FROM TELLO. Paris, Louvre. 38 A History of Greek Art. The Assyrians were by origin one people with the Chaldeans and were therefore a branch of the great Semitic family. It is not until the ninth century B. C. that the great period of Assyrian history begins. Then for two and a half centuries Assyria was the great conquering power of the world. Near the end of the seventh century it was completely annihilated by a coalition of Babylonia and Media. With an insignificant exception or two the remains of Assyrian buildings and sculptures all belong to the period of Assyrian greatness. The principal sites where explorations have been carried on are Koyunjik (Nine- veh), Nimroud, and Khorsabad, and the ruins uncovered are chiefly those of royal palaces. These buildings were of enormous extent. The palace of Sennacherib at Nineveh, for example, covered more than twenty acres. Although the country possessed building stone in plenty, stone was not used except for superficial ornamentation, baked and unbaked bricks being the architect's sole reliance. This was a mere blind following of the ex- ample of Babylonia, from which Assyria derived all its culture. The palaces were probably only one story in height. Their principal splendor was in their interior decoration of painted stucco, enameled bricks, and, above all, painted reliefs in limestone or alabaster. The great Assyrian bas-reliefs covered the lower portions of the walls of important rooms. Designed to enrich the royal palaces, they drew their principal themes from the occupations of the kings. We see the monarch offering sacrifice before a divinity, or, more often, engaged in his favorite pursuits of war and hunt- ing. These extensive compositions cannot be ade- quately illustrated by two or three small pictures. The most that can be done is to show the sculptor's method Art in Egypt and Mesopotamia. 39 of treating single figures. Fig. 17 is a slab from the earliest series we possess, that belonging to the palace of FIG. 17. ASSYRIAN RELIEF. London, British Museum. (From Perrot and Chipiez, " Art in Chaldea and Assyria," Vol. II., Fig. 113.) Asshur-nazir-pal (884 860 B. C. ) at Nimroud. It represents the king facing to right, with a bowl for A History of Greek Art. libation in his right hand and his bow in his left, while a eunuch stands fronting him. The artistic style exhibited here remains with no essential change through- out the whole history of Assyrian art. The figures are in profile, except that the king's further shoulder is thrown forward in much the fashion which we have found the rule in Egypt, and the eyes appear as in front view. Both king and attendant are enveloped in long robes, in which there is no indication of folds, though fringes and tassels are elaborately rendered. The faces are of a strongly marked Semitic cast, but without any attempt at portrait- ure. The hair of the head ends in several rows of snail-shell curls, and the king's beard has rows of these curls alternating with more natural-look- ing portions. Little is displayed of the HJiJI/f -*^m body except the fore-arms, whose anatomy, though intelligible, is coarse and false. As for minor matters, such FIG. IS.-ASSYRIAN RELIEF. Paris, Louvre. ag the toQ h j gh pQ _ sition of the ears, and the unnatural shape of the king's right hand, it is needless to dwell upon them. A cunei- form inscription runs right across the relief, interrupted only by the fringes of the robes. Fig. 1 8 shows more distinctly the characteristic Art in Egypt and Mesopotamia. Assyrian method of representing the human head. Here are the same Semitic features, the eye in front view, and the strangely curled hair and beard. The only novelty is the incised line which marks the iris of the FIG. 19. WINGED BULL. Paris, Louvre. (From Perrot and Chipiez, "Art in Chaldea and Assyria," Vol. II., PI. IX.) eye. This peculiarity is first observed in work of Sargon's time (722-705 B. C. ). A constant and striking feature of the Assyrian palaces was afforded by the great, winged, human- headed bulls, which flanked the principal doorways. The one herewith given (Fig. 19) is from Sargon's palace at Khorsabad. The peculiar methods of Assyrian 42 A History of Greek Art. sculpture are not ill suited to this fantastic creature, an embodiment of force and intelligence. One special peculiarity will not escape the attentive observer. Like all his kind, except in Sennacherib's palace, this bull has five legs. He was designed to be looked at from directly in front or from the side, not from an inter- mediate point of view. Assyrian art was not wholly without capacity for im- provement. Under Asshur-bani-pal (668-626), the Sar- danapalus of the Greeks, it reached a distinctly higher level than ever before. It is from his palace at Nineveh that the slab partially shown in Fig. 20 was obtained. Two demons, with human bodies, arms, and legs, but with lions' heads, asses' ears, and eagles' talons, con- front one another angrily, brandishing daggers in their right hands. Mesopotamian art was fond of such creatures, but we do not know precisely what meaning was attached to the present scene. We need therefore consider only stylistic qualities. As the two demons wear only short skirts reaching from the waist to the knees, their bodies are more exposed than those of men usually are. We note the inaccurate anatomy of breast, abdo- men, and back, in dealing with which the sculptor had little experience to guide him. A marked difference is made between the outer and the inner view of the leg, the former being treated in the same style as the arms in Fig. 17. The arms are here better, because less exag- gerated. The junction of human shoulders and animal necks is managed with no sort of verisimilitude. But the heads, conventionalized though they are, are full of vigor. One can almost hear the angry snarl, and see the lightning flash from the eyes. It is, in fact, in the rendering of animals that Assyrian art attains to its highest level. In Asshur-bani-pal' s Art in Egypt and Mesopotamia. 43 palace extensive hunting scenes give occasion for intro- ducing horses, dogs, wild asses, lions, and lionesses, and these are portrayed with a keen eye for characteristic forms and movements. One of the most famous of these FIG. 20. ASSYRIAN RELIEF. London, British Museum. animal figures is the lioness shown in Fig. 21. The creature has been shot through with three great arrows. Blood gushes from her wounds. Her hind legs are paralyzed and drag helplessly behind her. Yet she still moves forward on her fore-feet and howls with rage and 44 A History of Greek Art. agony. Praise of this admirable figure can hardly be too strong. This and others of equal merit redeem Assyrian art. As has been Already intimated, these bas-reliefs were always colored, though, it would seem, only partially, whereas Egyptian bas-reliefs were completely covered with color. Of Assyrian stone sculpture in the round nothing has yet been said. A few pieces exist, but their style is so FIG. 21. WOUNDED LIONESS. London, British Museum. essentially like that of the bas-reliefs that they call for no separate discussion. More interesting is the Assyrian work in bronze. The most important specimens of this are some hammered reliefs, now in the British Museum, which originally adorned a pair of wooden doors in the palace of Shalmaneser III. at Balawat. The art of cast- ing statuettes and statues in bronze was also known and practiced, as it had been much earlier in Babylonia, but the examples preserved to us are few. For the decora- Art in Egypt and Mesopotamia. 45 tive use which the Assyrians made of color, our princi- pal witnesses are their enameled bricks. These are ornamented with various designs men, genii, animals, and floral patterns in a few rich colors, chiefly blue and yellow. Of painting, except in the sense of mural decoration, there is no trace. Egypt and Mesopotamia are, of all the countries around the Mediterranean, the only seats of an impor- tant, indigenous art, antedating that of Greece. Other countries of Western Asia Syria, Phrygia, Phenicia, Persia, and so on seem to have been rather recipients and transmitters than originators of artistic influences. For Egypt, Assyria, and the regions just named did not remain isolated from one another. On the contrary, in- tercourse both friendly and hostile was active, and artistic products, at least of the small and portable kind, were exchanged. The paths of communication were many, but there is reason for thinking that the Phe- nicians, the great trading nation of early times, were especially instrumental in disseminating artistic ideas. To these influences Greece was exposed before she had any great art of her own. Among the remains of pre- historic Greece we find, besides some objects of foreign manufacture, others, which, though presumably of na- tive origin, are yet more or less directly inspired by Egyptian or oriental models. But when the true history of Greek art begins, say about 600 B. C. , the influences from Egypt and Asia sink into insignificance. It may be that the impulse to represent gods and men in wood or stone was awakened in Greece by the example of older communities. It may be that one or two types of figures were suggested by foreign models. It may be that a hint was taken from Egypt for the form of the 46 A History of Greek Art. Doric column and that the Ionic capital derives from an Assyrian prototype. It is almost certain that the art of casting hollow bronze statues was borrowed from Egypt. And it is indisputable that some ornamental patterns used in architecture and on pottery were rather appropriated than invented by Greece. There is no occasion for dis- guising or underrating this indebtedness of Greece to her elder neighbors. But, on the other hand, it is im- portant not to exaggerate the debt. Greek art is essentially self-originated, the product of a unique, in- communicable genius. As well might one say that Greek literature is of Asiatic origin, because, forsooth, the Greek alphabet came from Phenicia, as call Greek art the offspring of Egyptian or oriental art because of the impulses received in the days of its beginning.* * This comparison is perhaps not original with the present writer. CHAPTER II. PREHISTORIC ART IN GREECE. THIRTY years ago it would have been impossible to write with any considerable knowledge of prehistoric art in Greece. The Iliad and Odyssey, to be sure, tell of numerous artistic objects, but no definite pictures of these were called up by the poet's words. Of actual re- mains only a few were known. Some implements of stone, the mighty walls of Tiryns, Mycenae, and many another ancient citadel, four'" treasuries," as they were often called, at Mycenae and one at the Boeotian Orchome- nus these made up pretty nearly the total of the visible relics of that early time. To-day the case is far different. Thanks- to the faith, the liberality, and the energy of Heinrich Schliemann, an immense impetus has been given to the study of prehistoric Greek archaeology. His excavations at Troy, Mycenae, Tiryns, and else- where aroused the world. He labored, and other men, better trained than he, have entered into his labors. The material for study is constantly accumulating, and constant progress is being made in classifying and inter- preting this material. A civilization antedating the Homeric poems stands now dimly revealed to us. My- cenae, the city ' ' rich in gold, ' ' the residence of Aga- memnon, whence he ruled over " many islands and all Argos,"* is seen to have had no merely legendary pre- eminence. So conspicuous, in fact, does Mycenae ap- pear in the light as well of archaeology as of epic, that * Iliad II., 108. 47 48 A History of Greek Art. it has become common, somewhat misleading though it is, to call a whole epoch and a whole civilization " My- cenaean." This "Mycenaean" civilization was widely extended over the Greek islands and the eastern por- tions of continental Greece in the second millennium be- fore our era. Exact dates are very risky, but it is reasonably safe to say that this civilization was in full de- velopment as early as the fifteenth century B. C, and that it was not wholly superseded till considerably later than looo B. C. It is our present business to gain some acquaintance with this epoch on its artistic side. It will be readily understood that our knowledge of the long period in question is still very fragmentary, and that, in the ab- sence of written records, our interpretation of the facts is hardly better than a groping in the dark. Fortunately we can afford, so far as the purposes of this book are concerned, to be content with a slight review. For it seems clear that the "Mycenaean" civilization devel- oped little which can be called artistic in the highest sense of that term. The real history of Greek art that is to say, of Greek architecture, sculpture, and painting begins much later. Nevertheless it will repay us to get some notion, however slight, of such prehistoric Greek remains as can be included under the broadest acceptation of the word " art." In such a survey it is usual to give a place to early walls of fortification, although these, to be sure, were almost purely utilitarian in their character. The classic example of these constructions is the citadel wall of Tiryns in Argolis. Fig. 22 shows a portion of this for- tification on the east side, with the principal approach. Huge blocks of roughly dressed limestone some of those in the lower courses estimated to weigh thirteen Prehistoric Art in Greece. 49 or fourteen tons apiece are piled one upon another, the interstices having been filled with clay and smaller stones. This wall is of varying thickness, averaging at the bottom about twenty-five feet. At two -places, viz., at the south end and on the east side near the southeast corner, the thickness is increased, in order to give room in the wall for a row of store chambers with communicating gallery. Fig. 23 shows one of these galleries in its present condition. It will be seen FIG. 22. CITADEL OF TIRYNS. that the roof has been formed by pushing the successive courses of stones further and further inward from both sides until they meet. The result is in form a vault, but the principle of the arch is not there, inasmuch as the stones are not jointed radially, but lie on approxi- mately horizontal beds. Such a construction is some- imes called a ' ' corbelled ' ' arch or vault. Similar walls to those of Tiryns are found in many places, though nowhere else are the blocks of such gigantic size. The Greeks of the historical period viewed these imposing structures with as much astonish- 50 A History of Greek Art. ment as do we, and attributed them (or at least those in Argolis) to the Cyclopes, a mythical folk, conceived in this connection as masons of superhuman strength. FIG. 23. GALLERY IN THE EASTERN WALL. Tiryns. Hence the adjective Cyclopian or Cyclopean, whose meaning varies unfortunately in modern usage, but which is best restricted to walls of the Tirynthian type ; Prehistoric Art in Greece, that is to say, walls built of large blocks not accurately fitted together, the interstices being filled with small stones. This style of masonry seems to be always of early date. Portions of the citadel wall of Mycenas are Cyclopean. Other portions, quite probably of later date, show a very different character (Fig. 24). Here the blocks on the outer surface of the wall, though irregular in shape, FIG. 24. PORTION OF CITADEL WALL. Mycenae. are fitted together with close joints. This style of masonry is called polygonal and is .to be carefully distinguished from Cyclopean, as above defined. Finally, still other portions of this same Mycenaean wall show on the outside a near approach to what is called ashlar masonry, in which the blocks are rectangular and laid in even, horizontal courses. This is the case near the Lion Gate, the principal entrance to the citadel (Fig- 25)- Next to the walls of fortification the most numerous A History of Greek Art. early remains of the builder's art in Greece are the "bee-hive" tombs, of which many examples have been discovered in Argolis, Laconia, Attica, Bceotia, Thes- saly, and Crete. At Mycenae alone there are eight now known, all of them outside the citadel. The largest and most imposing of these, and indeed of the entire class, is the one commonly referred to by the misleading name of the ' ' Treasury of Atreus. ' ' Fig. 26 gives a section through this tomb. A straight passage, A B, flanked by walls of ashlar masonry and open to the sky, leads to FIG. 25. THK LION GATE. Mycenae. a doorway, B. This doorway, once closed with heavy doors, was framed with an elaborate architectural com- position, of which only small fragments now exist and these widely dispersed in London, Berlin, Carlsruhe, Munich, Athens, and Mycenae itself. In the decoration Prehistoric Art in Greece. 53 of this facade rosettes and running spirals played a con- spicuous part, and on either side of the doorway stood a column which tapered downwards and was ornamented with spirals arranged in zigzag bands. This downward- tapering column, so unlike the columns of classic times, seems to have been in common use in Mycenaean archi- D A FIG. 26. SECTION OF "TREASURY OF ATREUS." (From the Athenische Mittheilungen, 1879, PI. XI.) tecture. Inside the doors comes a short passage, B C, roofed by two huge lintel blocks, the inner one of which is estimated to weigh 132 tons. The principal chamber, D, which is embedded in the hill, is circular in plan, with a lower diameter of about forty-seven feet. Its wall is formed of horizontal courses of stone, each pushed further inward than the one below it, until the opening was small enough to be covered by a single stone. The method of roofing is therefore identical in principle with that used in the galleries and store chambers of Tiryns ; but here the blocks have been much more carefully worked and accurately fitted, and the exposed ends have been so beveled as to give to the whole interior a smooth, curved surface. Numerous horizontal rows of small holes exist, only partly indi- cated in our illustration, beginning in the fourth course from the bottom and continuing at intervals probably to the top. In some of these holes bronze nails still remain. These must have served for the attachment 54 A History of Greek Art. of some sort of bronze decoration. The most careful study of the disposition of the holes has led to the con- clusion that the fourth and fifth courses were completely covered with bronze plates, presumably ornamented, and that above this there were rows of single ornaments, possibly rosettes. Fig. 27 will give some idea of the present appearance of this chamber, which is still com- plete, except for the loss of the bronze decoration and two or three stones at the top. The small doorway which is seen here, as well as in Fig. 26, leads into a rectangular chamber, hewn in the living rock. This is much smaller than the main cham- FIG. 27. INTERIOR OF " TREASURY OF ATREUS." i ( From a photograph by the German Archaeo- Der. At Orchomenus in Bceotia are the ruins of a tomb scarcely inferior in size to the ' ' Treasury of Atreus ' ' and once scarcely less magnificent. Here too, besides the "bee-hive" construction, there was a lateral, rectangular cham- ber a feature which occurs only in these two cases. Excavations conducted here by Schliemann in 1 880-8 1 brought to light the broken fragm'ents of a ceiling of greenish schist with which this lateral cham- Prehistoric Art in Greece. 55 her was once covered. -Fig. 28 shows this ceiling restored. The beautiful sculptured decoration con- FIG. 28. CEILING OF TOMB-CHAMBER AT ORCHOMENUS, RESTORED. (From The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. II., PI. XII.) sists of elements which recur in almost the same com- bination on a fragment of painted stucco from the 56 A History of Greek Art. palace of Tiryns. The pattern is derived from Egypt. The two structures just described were long ago broken into and despoiled. If they stood alone, we could only guess at their original purpose. But some other examples of the same class have been left un- molested or less completely ransacked, until in recent years they could be studied by scientific investigators. Furthermore we have the evidence of numerous rock- cut chambers of analogous shape, many of which have been recently opened in a virgin condition. Thus it has been put beyond a doubt that these subterranean ' ' bee- hive ' ' chambers were sepulchral monuments, the bodies having been laid in graves within. The largest and best built of these tombs, if not all, must have belonged to princely families. Even the dwelling-houses of the chieftains who ruled at Tiryns and Mycenae are known to us by their remains. The palace of Tiryns occupied the entire southern end of the citadel, within the massive walls above described. Its ruins were uncovered in 1884-85. The plan and the lower portions of the walls of an extensive com- plex of gateways, open courts, and closed rooms were thus revealed. There are remains of a similar building at Mycenae, but less well preserved, while the citadels of Athens and Troy present still more scanty traces of an analogous kind. The walls of the Tirynthian palace were not built of gigantic blocks of stone, such as were used in the citadel wall. That would have been a reck- less waste of labor. On the contrary, they were built partly of small irregular pieces of stone, partly of sun- dried bricks. Clay was used to hold these materials together, and beams of wood ( ' ' bond timbers ' ' ) were laid lengthwise here and there in the wall to give additional strength. Where columns were needed, they Prehistoric Art in Greece. 57 were in every case of wood, and consequently have long since decomposed and disappeared. Considerable re- mains, however, were found of the decorations of the interior. Thus there are bits of what must once have been a beautiful frieze of alabaster, inlaid with pieces of blue glass. A restored piece of this, sufficient to give the pattern, is seen in Fig. 29. Essentially the same design, somewhat simplified, occurs on objects of stone, ivory, and glass found at Mycenae and in a " bee-hive " tomb of Attica. Again, there are fragments of painted stucco which decorated the walls of rooms in the palace FIG. 29. ALABASTER FRIEZE FROM TIRYNS, RESTORED. (From Sybel, " Weltgeschichte der Kunst," page 62.) of Tiryns. The largest and most interesting of these fragments is shown in Fig. 30. A yellow and red bull is represented against a blue background, galloping furiously to left, tail in air. Above him is a man of slender build, nearly naked. With his right hand the man grasps one of the bull's horns ; his right leg is bent at the knee and the foot seems to touch with its toes the bull' s back ; his outstretched left leg is raised high in air. We have several similar representations on objects of the Mycenaean period, the most interesting of which will be presently described (see page 67). The comparison A History of Greek Art. of these with one another leaves little room for doubt that the Tirynthian fresco was intended to portray the chase of a wild bull. But what does the man's position signify? Has he been tossed into the air by the infuriated animal ? Has he adventurously vaulted upon FIG. 30. WALL-FRESCO FROM TIRYNS. (From Schliemann, " Tiryns," PI. XIII.) the creature' s back ? Or did the painter mean him to be running on the ground, and, finding the problem of drawing the two figures in their proper relation too much for his simple skill, did he adopt the child-like expedient of putting one above the other? This last seems much the most probable explanation, especially as the same expedient is to be seen in several other designs belonging to this period. At Mycenae also, both in the principal palace which corresponds to that of Tiryns and in a smaller house, remains of wall-frescoes have been found. These, like those of Tiryns, consisted partly of merely ornamental patterns, partly of genuine pictures, with human and Prehistoric Art in Greece. 59 animal figures. But nothing has there come to light at once so well preserved and so spirited as the bull-fresco from Tiryns. Painting in the Mycenaean period seems to have been nearly, if not entirely, confined to the decoration of house-walls and of pottery. Similarly sculpture had no existence as a great, independent art. There is no trace of any statue in the round of life- size or anything approaching that. This agrees with the impression we get from the Ho- rn eric poems, where, with possibly one ex- ception,* there is no allusion to any sculptured image. There are, to be sure, primitive statu- ettes, one class of which, very rude and early, in fact pre- FIG. 31. PRIMITIVE STATUETTES FROM THE GREEK Mycenaean in ISLANDS. London, British Museum. character is il lustrated by Fig. 31. Images of this sort have been found principally on the islands of the Greek Archipel- * Iliad VI., 273, 303. 6o A History of Greek Art. ago. They are made of marble or limestone, and rep- resent a naked female figure standing stiffly erect, with arms crossed in front below the breasts. The head is of extraordinary rudeness, the face of a horse-shoe shape, often with no feature except a long triangular nose. What religious ideas were associated with these barbarous little images by their possessors we can hardly guess. We shall see that when a truly G reek art came into be- ing, figures of goddesses and wo men were decorously clothed. Excavations on Mycenaean s ites have yielded quan- tities of small figures, chiefly of painted terra-cotta((/. Fig. 43), but also of bronze or lead. Of sculpture on a larger scale we possess nothing except the gravestones found at Mycenae and the relief which has given a name, albeit an inaccurate one, to the Lion Gate. The gravestones are probably the earlier. They were found within a circular enclosure just inside the Lion Gate, above a group of six graves the so-called pit- FIG. 32. GRAVESTONE FROM MYCENAE. Athens, National Museum. Prehistoric Art in Greece. 61 graves or shaft-graves of Mycenae. The best preserved of these gravestones is shown in Fig. 32. The field, bordered by a double fillet, is divided horizontally into two parts. The upper part is filled with an ingeniously contrived system of running spirals. Below is a battle- scene : a man 'in a chariot is driving at full speed, and in front there is a naked foot soldier (enemy?), with a sword in his uplifted left hand. Spirals, apparently meaningless, fill in the vacant spaces. The technique is very simple. The figures having been outlined, the background has been cut away to a shallow depth ; within the outlines there is no modeling, the surfaces being left flat. It is needless to dwell on the short- comings of this work, but it is worth while to remind the reader that the gravestone commemorates one who must have been an important personage, probably a chieftain, and that the best available talent would have been secured for the purpose. The famous relief above the Lion Gate of Mycenae (Figs. 25, 33), though probably of somewhat later date than the sculptured gravestones, is still generally be- lieved to go well back into the second millennium before Christ. It represents two lionesses (not lions) facing one another in heraldic fashion, their fore-paws resting on what is probably to be called an altar or pair of altars ; between them is a column, which tapers down- ward (/". the columns of the " Treasury of Atreus," page 53), surmounted by what seems to be a suggestion of an entablature. The heads of the lionesses, originally made of separate pieces and attached, have been lost. Otherwise the work is in good preservation, in spite of its uninterrupted exposure for more than three thousand years. The technique is quite different from that of the gravestones, for all parts of the relief are carefully 62 A History of Greek Art. modeled. The truth to nature is also far greater here, the animals being tolerably life-like. The design is one which recurs with variations on two or three engraved FIG. 33. RELIEF ABOVE THE LION GATE, MYCEN/E. (From Perrot and Chipiez, " Histoire de 1'Art dans l'Antiquit6," Vol. VI., PI. XIV.) gems of the Mycenaean period (cf. Fig. 40), as well as m a series of later Phrygian reliefs in stone. Placed in Prehistoric Art in Greece. 63 this conspicuous position above the principal entrance to the citadel, it may perhaps have symbolized the power of the city and its rulers. If sculpture in stone appears to have been very little practiced in the Mycenaean age, the arts of the gold- smith, silversmith, gem-engraver, and ivory-carver were in great requisition. The shaft-graves of Mycenae con- tained, besides other things, a rich treasure of gold ob- jects masks, drinking-cups, diadems, ear-rings, finger- rings, and so on ; also several silver vases. One of the FIG. 34. GOLD ORNAMENT. FIG. 35. Goto ORNAMENT. (From Schliemann, " Mycenae," (From Schliemann, " Mycenae," Fig. 240.) Fig. 246.) latter may be seen in Fig. 43. It is a large jar, about two and one half feet in height, decorated below with horizontal flutings and above with continuous spirals in repousse (i.e., hammered) work. Most of the gold objects must be passed over, interesting though many of them are. But we may pause a moment over a group of circular ornaments in thin gold-leaf about two and one half inches in diameter, of which 701 speci- mens were found, all in a single grave. The patterns on these discs were not executed with a free hand, but 64 A History of Greek Art. by means of a mold. There are fourteen patterns in all, some of them made up of spirals and serpentine curves, others derived from vegetable and animal forms. Two of the latter class are shown in Figs. 34, 35. One is a butterfly, the other a cuttle-fish, both of them skilfully conventionalized. It is interesting to note how the antennae of the butterfly and still more the arms of the cuttle-fish are made to end in the favorite spiral. The sculptures and gold objects which have been thus far described or referred to were in all probability executed by na- tive, or at any rate by resident, work- men, though some of the patterns clearly betray ori- ental influence. Other objects must have been, others may have been, actually imported from Egypt or the East. It is impos- sible to draw the line with certainty between native and FIG. 36. SILVER Cow's HEAD. Athens, National , j -T.I Museum. ( From a photograph by the Ger- imported. 1 n U S the admirable sil- ver head of a cow from one of the shaft-graves (Fig. 36) has been claimed as an Egyptian or a Phenician produc- Prehistoric Art in Greece. tion, but the evidence adduced is not decisive. Sim- ilarly with the fragment of a silver vase shown in Fig. 37. This has a design in relief (repousse*) representing the siege of a walled town or citadel. On the walls is a group of women making frantic gestures. The defenders, most of them naked, are armed with bows and ar- rows and slings. On the ground lie sling-stones and throwing- sticks,* which may be sup- posed to have been hurled by the enemy. In the background there are four nondescript trees, perhaps intended for olive trees. Another variety of Mycenaean metal-work is of a much higher order of merit than the dramatic but rude relief on this silver vase. I refer to a number of inlaid dagger-blades, which were found in two of the shaft- graves. Fig. 38 reproduces one side of the finest of these. It is about nine inches long. The blade is of bronze, while the rivets by which the handle was attached are of gold. The design was inlaid in a separate thin slip of bronze, which was then inserted FIG. 37. FRAGMENT OF SILVER VASE. Athens, National Museum. (From the Ephemeris Archaiologike, 1891, PI. II.) * So explained by Mr. A. J. Evans in The Journal of Hellenic Studies, XIII., page 199. 66 A History of Greek Art. into a sinking on the blade. The materials used are various. The lions and the naked parts of the men are of gold, the shields and trunks of the men of electrum (a mixture of gold and '.j? silver), the hair of the =5; men, the manes of the s ^ lions, and some other details of an unidenti- J[ fied dark substance ; | the background, to the <3 edges of the inserted slip, was covered with | a black enamel. The ^ scene is a lion-hunt. B Four men, one armed o only with a bow, the others with lances and |3 huge shields of two %a: different forms, are at- _8 tacking a lion. A fifth rt ^ J hunter has fallen and , lies under the lion's c fore-paws. The beast ^ has already been run ^ through with a lance, < the point of which is seen protruding from g his haunch ; but he o still shows fight, while < his two companions .2 dash away at full < speed. The design is S2 skilfully composed to fill the triangular Prehistoric Art in Greece. 67 space, and the attitudes of men and beasts are varied, expressive, and fairly truthful. Another of these dagger-blades has a representation of panthers hunting ducks by the banks of a river in which what may be lotus plants are growing. The lotus would point toward Egypt as the ultimate source of the design. Moreover, a dagger of similar technique has been found in Egypt in the tomb of a queen belonging to the end of the Seventeenth Dynasty. On the other hand, the dress and the shields of the men engaged in the lion-hunt are identical with those on a number of other ' ' My- cenaean" articles gems, statuettes, etc. which it is difficult to regard as all of foreign importation. The probability, then, seems to be that while the technique of the dagger-blades was directly or indirectly derived from Egypt, the specimens found at Mycenae were of local manufacture. The greatest triumph of the goldsmith's art in the "Mycenaean" period does not come from Mycenae. The two gold cups shown in Fig. 39 were found in 1888 in a bee-hive tomb at Vaphio in Laconia. Each cup is double ; that is to say, there is an outer cup, which has been hammered into shape from a single disc of gold and which is therefore without a joint, and an inner cup, similarly made, whose upper edge is bent over the outer cup so as to hold the two together. The horizontal parts of the handles are attached by rivets, while the intervening vertical cylinders are soldered. The designs in repousst: work are evidently pendants to one another. The first represents a hunt of wild bulls. One bull, whose appearance indicates the highest pitch of fury, has dashed a would-be captor to earth and is now tossing another on his horns. A second bull, entangled in a stout net, writhes and bellows in the vain effort to Prehistoric Art in Greece. 69 escape. A third gallops at full speed from the scene of his comrade's captivity. The other design shows us four tame bulls. The first submits with evident im- patience to his master. The next two stand quietly, with an almost comical effect of good nature and con- tentment. The fourth advances slowly, browsing. In each composition the ground is indicated, not only beneath the men and animals, but above them, wher- ever the design affords room. It is an example of the same nai've perspective which seems to have been employed in the Tirynthian bull-fresco (Fig. 30). The men, too, are of the same build here as there, and the bulls have similarly curving horns. There are several trees on the cups, two of which are clearly characterized as palms, while the others resemble those in Fig. 37, and may be intended for olives. The bulls are rendered with amazing spirit and understanding. True, there are palpable defects, if one examines closely. For example, the position of the bull in the net is quite impossible. But in general the attitudes and expressions are as life- like as they are varied. Evidently we have here the work of an artist who drew his inspiration directly from nature. Engraved gems were in great demand in the My- cenaean period, being worn as ornamental beads, and the work of the gem-engraver, like that of the gold- smith, exhibits excellent qualities. The usual material was some variety of ornamental stone agate, jasper, rock-crystal, etc. There. are two principal shapes, the one lenticular, the other elongated or glandular (Figs. 40, 41). The designs are engraved in intaglio, but, our illustrations being made, as is usual, from plaster impressions, they appear as cameos. Among the sub- jects the lion plays an important part, sometimes yo A History of Greek Art. represented singly, sometimes in pairs, sometimes de- vouring a bull or stag. Cattle, goats, deer, and fantastic creatures (sphinxes, griffins, etc. ) are also common. So are human figures, often engaged in war or the chase. In the best of these gems the work is executed with great care, and the designs, though often inaccu- rate, are nevertheless vigorous. Very commonly, how- ever, the distortion of the figure is carried beyond all bounds. Fig. 40 was selected for illustration, not be- cause it is a particularly favorable specimen of its class, but because it offers an interesting analogy to the relief above the Lion Gate. It represents two lions ram- FIGS. 4 o, 4I.-ENGRAVED GEMS FROM pant, their fore-paws resting MYCENAE. (From the Ephemeris o1t ar O\ tVipiY Vi^Qrlc Archaioiogike, 1888, PI. x.) on an al t ar (? ) , tneir neads, oddly enough, combined into one. The column which figures in the relief above the gate is absent from the gem, but is found on another specimen from Mycenae, where the animals, however, are winged griffins. Fig. 41 has only a stand- ing man, of the wasp-waisted figure and wearing the girdle with which other representations have now made us familiar. It remains to glance at the most important early varieties of Greek pottery. We need not stop here to study the rude, unpainted, mostly hand-made vases from the earliest strata at Troy and Tiryns, nor the more developed, yet still primitive, ware of the island of Thera. But the Mycenaean pottery is of too great im- portance to be passed over. This was the characteristic ware of the Mycenaean civilization. The probability is that it was manufactured at several different places, FIG. 42. VASES OF MYCEN^AN STYLE. (From Baumeister, " Denkmaler," page 1939.) 72 A History of Greek Art, of which Mycenae may have been one and perhaps the most important. It was an article of export and thus found its way even into Egypt, where specimens have been discovered in tombs of the Eighteenth Dynasty and later. The variations in form and ornamentation are con- siderable, as is natural with an article whose production was carried on at different centers and during a period of centuries. Fig. 42 shows a few of the characteristic shapes and decorations ; some additional pieces may be seen in Fig. 43. The Mycenaean vases are mostly wheel- FIG. 43. VASES (SILVER, TERRA-COTTA, AND ALABASTER) AND STATUETTES FROM MYCENAE. (From a photograph by the German Archaeological Institute.) made. The decoration, in the great majority of examples, is applied in a lustrous color, generally red, shading to brown or black. The favorite elements of design are bands and spirals and a variety of animal and vegetable forms, chiefly marine. Thus the vase at the bottom of Fig. 42, on the left, has a conventionalized nautilus ; the one at the top, on the right, shows a pair of lily-like plants ; and the jug in the middle of Fig. 43 is covered with the stalks and leaves of what is perhaps meant for seaweed. Quadrupeds and men belong to the latest period of the style, the vase-painters of the early and Prehistoric Art in Greece. 73 central Mycenaean periods having abstained, for some reason or other, from those subjects which formed the stock in trade of the gem-engravers. The Mycenaean pottery was gradually superseded by pottery of an essentially different style, called Geometric, from the character of its painted decorations. It is FIG. 44. DIPYLON VASE, WITH DETAILS. (From Brunn, " Griechische Kunstgeschichte," Fig. 54.) impossible to say when this style made its first appear- ance in Greece, but it seems to have flourished for some hundreds of years and to have lasted till as late as the end of the eighth century B. C. It falls into several local varieties, of which the most important is the Athenian. This is commonly called Dipylon pottery, from the fact that the cemetery near the Dipylon, the chief gate of ancient Athens, has supplied the greatest number of specimens. Some of these )ipylon vases are of great size and served as funeral monuments. Fig. 44 gives a good example of this class. It is four 74 A History of Greek Art. feet high. Both the shape and the decoration are very different from those of the Mycenaean style. The surface is almost completely covered by a system of ornament in which zigzags, meanders, and groups of concentric circles play an important part. In this system of Geometric patterns zones or friezes are re- served for designs into which human and animal figures enter. The center of interest is in the middle of the upper frieze, between the handles. Here we see a corpse upon a funeral bier, drawn by a two-horse wagon. To right and left are mourners arranged in two rows, one above the other. The lower frieze, which encircles the vase about at its middle, consists of a line of two-horse chariots and their drivers. The drawing of these designs is illustrated on a larger scale on the right and left of the vase in Fig. 44 ; it is more childish than anything we have seen from the My- cenaean period. The horses have thin bodies, legs, and necks, and their heads look as much like fishes as anything. The men and women are just as bad. Their heads show no feature save, at most, a dot for the eye and a projection for the nose, with now and then a sort of tassel for the hair ; their bodies are triangular, except those of the charioteers, whose shape is perhaps derived from one form of Greek shield ; their thin arms, of varying lengths, are entirely destitute of natural shape ; their long legs, though thigh and calf are distin- guished, are only a shade more like reality than the arms. Such incapacity on the part of the designer would be hard to explain, were he to be regarded as the direct heir of the Mycenaean culture. But the sources of the Geometric style are probably to be sought among other tribes than those which were dominant in the days of Mycenae's splendor. Greek tradition tells of a great Prehistoric Art in Greece. 75 movement of population, the so-called Dorian migra- tion, which took place some centuries before the begin- ning of recorded history in Greece. If that invasion and conquest of Peloponnesus by ruder tribes from the North be a fact, then the hypothesis is a plausible one which would connect the gradual disappearance of FIG. 45. PLATE FROM RHODES. British Museum. (From Salzmann, " Ncropole de Camiros," PI. LIII.) Mycenaean art with that great change. Geometric art, according to this theory, would have originated with the tribes which now came to the fore. Besides the Geometric pottery and its offshoots, sev- eral other local varieties were produced in Greece in 76 A History of Greek Art. the eighth and seventh centuries. These are some- times grouped together under the name of " oriental- izing ' ' styles, because, in a greater or less degree, they show in their ornamentation the influence of oriental models, of which the pure Geometric style betrays no trace. It is impossible here to describe all these local wares, but a single plate from Rhodes (Fig. 45) may serve to illustrate the degree of proficiency in the draw- ing of the human figure which had been attained about the end of the seventh century. Additional interest is lent to this design by the names attached to the three men. The combatants are Menelaus and Hector ; the fallen warrior is Euphorbus. Here for the first time we find depicted a scene from the Trojan War. From this time on the epic legends form a large part of the reper- tory of the vase-painters. CHAPTER III. GREEK ARCHITECTURE. THE supreme achievement of Greek architecture was the temple. In imperial Rome, or in any typical city of the Roman Empire, the most extensive and imposing buildings were secular basilicas, baths, amphitheaters, porticoes, aqueducts. In Athens, on the other hand, or in any typical Greek city, there was little or nothing to vie with the temples and the sacred edifices associated with them. Public secular buildings, of course, there were, but the little we know of them does not suggest that they often ranked among the architectural glories of the country. Private houses were in the best period of small pretensions. It was to the temple and its ad- junct buildings that the architectural genius and the material resources of Greece were devoted. It is the temple, then, which we have above all to study. Before beginning, however, to analyze the artistic features of the temple, it will be useful to consider the building materials which a Greek architect had at his disposal and his methods of putting them together. Greece is richly provided with good building stone. At many points there are inexhaustible stores of white marble. The island of Paros, one of the Cyclades, and Mount Pentelicus in Attica to name only the two best and most famous quarries are simply masses of white marble, suitable as well for the builder as the sculptor. There are besides various beautiful colored marbles, but it was left tp the Romans to bring these into use. Then ' 77 78 A History of Greek Art. there are many commoner sorts of stone ready to the builder's hand, especially the rather soft, brown lime- stones which the Greeks called by the general name of poros* This material was not disdained, even for im- portant buildings. Thus the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, one of the two most important religious centers in the Greek world, was built of local poros. The same was the case with the numerous temples of Acragas (Gir- genti) and Selinus in Sicily. An even meaner ma- terial, sun-dried brick, was sometimes, perhaps often, employed for cella walls. Where poros or crude brick was used, it was coated over with a very fine, hard stucco, which gave a surface like that of marble. It is remarkable that no use was made in Greece of baked bricks before the period of Roman domination. Roof-tiles of terra-cotta were in use from an early period, and Greek travelers to Babylonia brought back word of the use of baked bricks in that country. Nevertheless Greek builders showed no disposition to adopt baked bricks for their masonry. This probably hangs together with another important fact, the absence of lime-mortar from Greek architecture. Lime-stucco was in use from time immemorial. But lime-mortar, i.e. , lime mixed with sand and used as a bond for masonry, is all but unknown in Greek work.f Consequently in the walls of temples and other carefully constructed buildings an elaborate system of bonding by means of clamps and dowels was resorted to. Fig. 46 illustrates this and some other points. The blocks of marble are seen to be perfectly rectangular and of uni- form length and height. Each end of every block is * The word has no connection with porous. f The solitary exception at present known is an Attic tomb built of crude bricks laid in lime-mortar. Greek Architecture, 79 worked with a slightly raised and well-smoothed border, for the purpose of securing without unnecessary labor a perfectly accurate joint. The shallow holes, III, III, in the upper surfaces are pry-holes, which were of use in prying the blocks into position. The adjustment haying been made, contiguous blocks in the same course were bonded to one another by clamps, I, I, em- bedded horizon- tally, while the sliding of one course upon another was prevented by up- jjjli right dowels, II, II. Greek clamps FIG. 46. GREEK METHOD OF BUILDING A WALL. (From the Athenische Mittheilungen, 1881. PI. XII.) and dowels were usually of iron and they were fixed in their sockets by means of molten lead run in. The form of the clamp differs at different periods. The double-T shape shown in the illustration is characteristic of the best age (cf. also Fig. 48). Another important fact to be noted at the outset is the absence of the arch from Greek architecture. It is reported by the Roman philosopher, Seneca, that the principle of the arch was ' ' discovered ' ' by the Greek philosopher, Democritus, who lived in the latter half of the fifth century B. C. That he independently dis- covered the arch as a practical possibility is most un- likely, seeing that it had been used for ages in Egypt and Mesopotamia ; but it may be that he discussed, however imperfectly, the mathematical theory of the subject. If so, it would seem likely that he had prac- 8o A History of Greek Art. tical illustrations about him ; and this view receives some support from the existence of a few subterranean vaults which perhaps go back to the good Greek period. Be that as it may, the arch plays absolutely no part in the columnar architecture of Greece. In a Greek tem- ple or similar building only the flat ceiling was known. Above the exterior portico and the vestibules of a tem- ple the ceiling was sometimes of stone or marble, some- times of wood ; in the interior it was always of wood. It follows that no very wide space could be ceiled over without extra supports. At Priene in Asia Minor we find a temple (Fig. 49) whose cella, slightly over thirty feet in breadth, has no in- terior columns. The arch- itect of the Temple of Athena on the island of ^gina (Fig. 52) was less venturesome. Although the cella there is only 2 1 ^ feet in breadth, we find, as in large temples, a double row of columns to help support the ceiling. And when a really large room was built, like the Hall of Initiation at Eleusis or the Assembly Hall of the Ar- FIG. 47. PLAN OF SMALL TEMPLE. cadians at Megalopolis, Rhamnus. A, cella; ^,pronaos. " (From the "Unedited Antiquities of At- SUch a forest of pillars Was tica," Chap. VII., PI. 1.) . , , required as must have seri- ously interfered with the convenience of congregations. We are now ready to study the plan of a Greek tem- ple. The essential feature is an enclosed chamber, commonly called by the Latin name cella, in which Greek Architecture. 81 stood, as a rule, the image of the god or goddess to whom the temple was dedicated. Fig. 47 shows a very simple plan. Here the side walls of the cella are pro- longed in front and terminate in ant<z (see below, page 88). Between the antae are two columns. This type of temple is called a tent- plum in antis. Were the ves- tibule (pro- naos*) repeated at the other end of the building, it would be called an opis- thodomos, and the whole b u i 1 d i n g would be a double tern- plum in antis. In Fig. 48 the vestibules are formed by rows of col- umns extend- ing across the whole width of the cella, whose side walls are not pro- longed. Did a vestibule exist at the front only, the temple would be called prostyle ; as it is, it is amphi- prostyle. Only small Greek temples have as simple a plan as those just described. Larger temples are per- ipteral, i. e. , are surrounded by a colonnade or peristyle FIG. 48. PLAN OF TEMPLE OF WINGLESS VICTORY. Athens. A, cella; ~$>,pronaos ; C, opisthodomos. (From Ross, " Tempel der Nike Apteros, PI. I.) 82 A History of Greek Art. (Figs. 49, 50). In Fig. 49 the cella with its vestibules has the form of a double templum in antis ; in Fig. 50 it is amphiprostyle. A further difference should be noted. In Fig. 49, which is the plan of an Ionic tem- ple, the antae and columns of the vestibules are in line with columns of the outer row, at both the ends and the sides ; in Fig. 50, which is the plan of a Doric temple, the exterior columns are set without regard to the cella wallj and the columns of the vestibules. This is a reg- ular difference between Doric and Ionic temples, though the rule is subject to a few exceptions in the case of the former. The plan of almost any Greek temple will be found to r FIG. 49. PLAN OF TEMPLE AT PRIENE. (From Rayet and Thomas, " Milet et le Golfe Latmique," PI. IX.) be referable to one or other of the types just described, although there are great differences in the proportions of the several parts. It remains only to add that in almost every case the principal front was toward the east or nearly so. When Greek temples were converted into Christian churches, as often happened, it was neces- sary, in order to conform to the Christian ritual, to Greek Architecture. reverse this arrangement and to place the principal entrance at the western end. The next thing is to study the principal elements of a Greek temple as seen in ele- vation. This 3 . 1 n brings us to the ^ subject of the '| *T3 Greek "or- > z ders." There o **] are two princi- jj> pal orders in H Greek architec- ture, the Doric - z and the Ionic. ~ Figs. 51 and 61 i show a charac- ^ 13 teristic speci- men of each. 3- n The term ' ' or- ^ der," it should I" ~. be said, is com- . t* monly restricted in architectural * parlance to the |" column and en- 3 tablature. Our g illustrations, ^ however, show >< all the features 5 of a Doric and an Ionic facade. There are several points of agreement between the two : in each the columns rest on a stepped base, called the 84 A History of Greek Art. Cornice Frieze Architrave Capital . Shaft Stylobate . . crepidoma, the upper- most step of which is the stylobate ; in each the shaft of the column tapers from the lower to the upper end, is chan- neled or fluted verti- cally, and is surmounted by a projecting member called a capital; in each the entablature consists of three members architrave, frieze, and cornice. There the important points of agreement end. The differences will best be fixed in mind by a de- tailed examination of each order separately. Our typical example of the Doric order ( Fig. 51) is taken from the Temple of Aphaia on the island of ^Egina a temple probably erected about 480 B. C. (cf. Fig. 52.) The col- umn consists of two parts, shaft and capital. It is of sturdy pro- portions, its height being about five and one half FIG 51. CORNER OF A DORIC FACADE, times the lower diameter Greek Architecture. 85 of the shaft. If the shaft tapered upward at a uniform rate, it would have the form of a truncated cone. Instead of that, the shaft has an entasis or swelling. Imagine a vertical section to be made through the mid- dle of the column. If, then, the diminution of the shaft were uniform, the sides of this section would be straight lines. In reality, however, they are slightly curved lines, convex outward. This addition to the form of a truncated cone is the entasis. It is greatest at about one third or one half the height of the shaft, and there amounts, in cases that have been measured, to from *V to T*T of the lower diameter of the shaft.* In some early Doric temples, as the one at Assos in Asia Minor, there is no entasis. The channels or flutes in our typical column are twenty in number. More rarely we find sixteen ; much more rarely larger multiples of four. These channels are so placed that one comes directly under the middle of each face of the capital. They are comparatively shallow, and are separated from one another by sharp edges or arrises. The capital, though worked out of one block, may be regarded as consisting of two parts a cushion-shaped member called an echi- nus, encircled below by three to five annulets, (cf. Figs. 59, 60) and a square slab called an abacus, the latter so placed that its sides are parallel to the sides of the build- ing. The architrave is a succession of horizontal beams resting upon the columns. The face of this member is plain, except that along the upper edge there runs a slightly projecting flat band called a tcenia, with regulae and guttae at equal intervals ; these last are best con- sidered in connection with the frieze. The frieze is made * Observe that the entasis is so slight that the lowest diameter of the shaft is always the greatest diameter. The illustration is unfortunately not quite cor- rect, since it gives the shaft a uniform diameter for about one third of its height. 86 A History of Greek Art. up of alternating triglyphs and metopes. A triglyph is a block whose height is nearly twice its width ; upon its face are two furrows triangular in plan, and its outer edges are chamfered off. Thus we may say that the tri- glyph has two furrows and two half-furrows ; these do not extend to the top of the block. A triglyph is placed over the center of each column and over the center of FIG. 52. WEST FRONT OF THE TEMPLE OF APHAIA, RESTORED. ^Egina. (From Cockerell, " Temples at ^Egina and Bassae," PI. IV.) each intercolumniation. But at the corners of the build- ings the intercolumniations are diminished, with the result that the corner triglyphs do not stand over the centers of the corner columns, but farther out (cf. Fig. 52). Under each triglyph there is worked upon the face of the architrave, directly below the taenia, a regula, shaped like a small cleat, and to the under surface of this regula is attached a row of six cylindrical or conical Greek Architecture. 87 guttcE. Between every two triglyphs, and standing a little farther back, there is a square or nearly square slab or block called a metope. This has a flat band across the top ; for the rest, its face may be either plain or sculp- tured in relief. The uppermost member of the entabla- ture, the cornice, consists principally of a projecting portion, the corona, on whose inclined under surface or soffit are rectangular projections, the so-called mutules (best seen in the frontispiece), one over each triglyph and each metope. Three rows of six guttae each are attached to the under surface of a mutule. Above the cornice, at the east and west ends of the building, come the triangular pediments or gables, formed by the sloping roof and adapted for groups of sculpture. The pedi- ment is protected above by a " rak- ing" cornice, which has not the same form as the horizontal cornice, the principal dif- ference being that the under surface of the raking cor- nice is concave and without mutules. Above the raking FIG. 53. FRAGMENT OF SIMA, WITH LION'S HEAD. COmiCe COmeS a Athens, Acropolis Museum. (From a photograph by the German Archaeological Institute.) sima or gutter- facing, which in buildings of good period has a curvi- linear profile. This sima is sometimes continued along the long sides of the building, and sometimes not. When it is so continued, water-spouts are inserted into it at intervals, usually in the form of lions' heads. Fig. 53 88 A History of Greek Art. shows a fine lion's head of this sort from a sixth century temple on the Athenian Acropolis. If it be added that upon the apex and the lower corners of the pediment there were commonly pedestals which supported statues or other ornamental objects (Fig. 52), mention will have been made of all the main features of the exterior of a Doric peripteral temple. Every other part of the building had likewise its _ established form, but it will not be possible here to de- scribe or even to mention every de- tail. The most im- portant member not yet treated of is the anta. An anta may be described as a pilaster forming the termination of a n ,aM Tt aii< FIG. 54- HALF OF ANTA-CAPITAL OF THE ATHENIAN PROPYLVEA, WITH COLOR RESTORED. directly opposite a (FromFenger, "Dorische Polychrotnie," PI. VII.) , . column and is of the same height with it, its function being to receive one end of an architrave block, the other end of which is borne by the column. The breadth of its front face is slightly greater than the thickness of the wall ; the breadth of a side face depends upon whether or not the anta supports an architrave on that side (Figs. 47, 48, 49> 5)- The Doric anta has a special capital, quite unlike the capital of the column. Fig. 54 shows an ex- ample from a building erected in 43732 B. C. Its most striking feature is the Doric cyma, or hawk' s- beak mold- ing, the characteristic molding of the Doric style (Fig. Greek Architecture. 89 55), used also to crown the horizontal cornice and in other situations (Fig. 51 and frontispiece). Below the capital the anta is treated precisely like the wall of which it forms a part ; that is to say, its surfaces are plain, except for the simple base-molding, which ex- tends also along the foot of the wall. The method of ceiling the peristyle and vestibules by means of ceiling- beams on which rest slabs decorated with square, recessed panels or coffers may be indistinctly seen in Fig. 56. Within the cella, when columns were used to help support the wooden ceiling, there seem to have been regularly two ranges, one above the other. This is the only case, so far as we know, in FIG. 55. HAWK'S-BEAK MOLDING, COLORED. which Greek archi- tecture of the best period put one range of columns above another. There were probably no windows of any kind, so that the cella received no daylight, except such as entered by the great front doorway, when the doors were open.* The roof-beams were of wood. The roof was covered with terra-cotta or marble tiles. Such are the main features of a Doric temple (those last mentioned not being peculiar to the Doric style). Little has been said thus far of variation in these features. Yet variation there was. Not to dwell on local differences, as between Greece proper and the Greek colonies in Sicily, there was a development con- stantly going on, changing the forms of details and the relative proportions of parts and even introducing new * This whole matter, however, is in dispute. Some authorities believe that large temples were hyptethral, i. f., open, or partly open, to the sky, or in some way lighted from above. In Fig. 56 an open grating has been inserted above the doors, but for such an arrangement in a Greek temple there is no evidence, so far as I am aware. A History of Greek Art. features originally foreign to the style. Thus the column grows slenderer from century to century. In early examples it is from four to five lower diameters in FIG. 56. EAST FRONT OF THE PARTHENON, RESTORED AND DISSECTED. (From the Wiener Vorlegeblatter.') height ; in the best period (fifth and fourth centuries) about five and one half ; in the post-classical period, six to seven. The difference in this respect between early A History of Greek Art. and late examples may be seen by comparing the sixth century Temple of Posidon (?) at Paestum in southern Italy (Fig. 57) with the third (?) century Temple of Zeus at Nemea (Fig. 58). Again, the echinus of the capital is in the early period widely flaring, making in some very early examples an angle at the start of not FIG. 58. COLUMNS OF THE TEMPLE OF ZEUS. Nemea. more than fifteen or twenty degrees with the horizontal (Fig. 59) ; in the best period it rises more steeply, starting at an angle of about fifty degrees with the horizontal and having a profile which closely approaches a straight line, until it curves inward under the abacus (Fig. 51) ; in the post-classical period it is low and sometimes quite conical (Fig. 60). In general, the Greek Architecture. 93 degeneracy of post-classical Greek architecture is in nothing more marked than in the loss of those subtle curves which characterize the best Greek work. Other differences must be learned from more extended treatises. The Ionic order was of a much more luxuriant char- acter than the Doric. Our typical example (Fig. 61) is taken from the Temple of Priene in Asia Minor a temple erected about 340-30 B. C. The column has a base consisting of a plain square plinth, two trochili with moldings, and a torus fluted horizontally. The Ionic FIG. 59. feARLY DORIC CAPITAL FROM SELINUS. FIG. 60. LATE DORIC CAPITAL FROM SAMOTHRACE. shaft is much slenderer than the Doric, the height of the column (including base and capital) being in different examples from eight to ten times the lower diameter of the shaft. The diminution of the shaft is naturally less than in the Doric, and the entasis, where any has been detected, is exceedingly slight. The flutes, twenty-four in number, are deeper than in the Doric shaft, being in fact nearly or quite semicircular, and they are separated from one another by flat bands or fillets. For the form of the capital it will be better to refer to Fig. 62, taken from an Attic building of the latter half of the fifth cen- tury. The principal parts are an ovolo and a spiral roll 94 A History of Greek Art. Shaft (Torus . . . Trochili . Plinth . . . Stylobate FIG. fei. CORNER OF AN IONIC FACADE. (the latter name not in general use). The ovolo has a convex pro- file, and is sometimes called a quarter-round ; it is enriched with an egg-and-dart ornament The spiral roll may be conceived as a long cushion, whose ends are rolled under to form the volutes. The part con- necting the volutes is slightly hollowed, and the channel thus formed is continued into the volutes. As seen from the side (Fig. 63), the end of the spiral roll is called a bolster / it has the appearance of being drawn together by a number of encircling bands. On the front, the angles formed by the spiral roll are filled by a conventionalized floral ornament (the so-called palmette) . Above the spiral roll is a low abacus, oblong or square in plan. In Fig. 62 the profile of the abacus is an ovolo on which the Greek Architecture. 95 egg-and-dart ornament was painted (cf. Fig., 66, where the ornament is sculptured). In Fig. 61, as in Fig. 71, the profile is a complex curve called a cyma re- versa, convex above and con- cave below, en- riched with a sculptured leaf- and-dart orna- ment.* Finally, attention mav be FIG. 62. CAPITAL FROM TEMPLE OF WINGLESS Vic- ' TORY. Front view. (From Adamy, "Archi- Called tO the as- tektonikderHellenen.Fig.g;.) tragal or pearl-beading just under the ovolo in Figs. ^ 61, 71. This might be de- scribed as a string of beads and buttons, two buttons alternating with a single bead. In the normal Ionic cap- ital the opposite faces are of identical appearance. If this were the case with the cap- ital at the corner of a build- ing, the result would be that on the side of the building FIG. 63. CAPITAL FROM TEMPLE OF all the Capitals WOuld pre- WINGLESS VICTORY. Side view. . ^, . , , . . , r (From Adamy, "Architektonik der Sent their bolsters instead of Hellenen," Fig. 97.) ... , . , , their volutes to the specta- tor. The only way to prevent this was to distort the * The egg-and-dart is found only on the ovolo; the leaf-and-dart only on the cyma reversa or the cyma recta (concave above and convex below). Both ornaments are in origin leaf-patterns, one row of leaves showing their points behind another row. g6 A History of Greek Art. corner capital into the form shown by Fig. 64 ; cf. also Figs. 6 1 and 70. The Ionic architrave is divided horizontally into three (or sometimes two) bands, each of the upper ones projecting slightly over the one below it. It is crowned by a sort of cornice enriched with moldings. The frieze is not divided like the Doric frieze, but pre- sents an uninterrupted surface. It may be either plain or covered with relief-sculpture. It is finished off with moldings along the upper edge. The cornice (cf. Fig. 65) consists of two principal parts. First comes a pro- jecting block, into whose face rectangular cuttings have been made at short intervals, thus leaving a succession of cogs or dentels ; above these are moldings. Secondly there is a much more widely projecting block, the co- rona, whose under surface is hol- lowed to lighten the weight and whose face is capped with mold- FIG. 64. IONIC CORNER \ na -c TTip ralrino- rnrnirp is 1ilr<=> CAPITAL, AS SEEN ln S s - L n< raKing COI FROM BELOW. j-^g horizontal cornice except that it has no dentels. The sima or gutter-facing, whose profile is here a cyma recta (concave above and convex below), is enriched with sculptured floral ornament. In the Ionic buildings of Attica the base of the column consists of two tori separated by a trochilus. The proportions of these parts vary considerably. The base in Fig. 66 (from a building finished about 408 B. C. ) is worthy of attentive examination by reason of its harmonious proportions. In the Roman form of this base, too often imitated nowadays, the trochilus has too small a diameter. The Attic- Ionic cornice never has dentels, unless the cornice of the Caryatid portico Greek Architecture. 97 of the Erechtheum ought to be reckoned as an instance (Fig. 67). FIG. 65. ENTABLATURE AND UPPER PART OF COLUMN FROM THE MAUSOLEUM. British Museum. The capital shown in Fig. 66 is a special variety of the Ionic capital, of rather rare occurrence. Its dis- 98 A History of Greek Art. Attic- Ionic Base tinguishing features are : the insertion between ovolo and spiral roll of a torus ornamented with a braided pattern, called a guilloche ; the ab- sence of the pal- mettes from the corners formed by the spiral roll ; and the fact that the channel of the roll is double instead of single, which gives a more elab- orate character to that member. Finally, in the Erechtheum the upper part or necking of the shaft is enriched with an exquisitely wrought band of floral ornament, the so- called honeysuckle pat- tern. This fea- ture is met with in some other ex- amples. As in the Doric style, so in the Ionic, the anta-capital is quite unlike the column-capital. Fig. 68 shows an anta-capital mimnn Torus . . . Trochilus Torus . . FlG. 66-ORDER OF THE ERECHTHEUM, EAST PORTICO. (From Stuart and Revett, "Antiquities of Athens.") Greek Architecture. 99 from the Erechtheum, with an adjacent portion of the wall-band ; cf. also Fig. 69. Perhaps it is inaccurate in this case to speak of an anta-capital at all, seeing FIG. 67. THE ERECHTHEUM, FROM THE EAST, RESTORED. (From Stuart and Revett, "Antiquities of Athens," Vol. II.) that the anta simply shares the moldings which crown the wall. The floral frieze under the moldings is, however, somewhat more elaborate on the anta than on FIG. 68. ANTA-CAPITAL AND WALL-BAND, FROM THE ERECHTHEUM. British Museum. the adjacent wall. The Ionic method of ceiling a peristyle or portico may be partly seen in Fig. 69. The principal ceiling-beams here rest upon the architrave, FIG. 69. THE NORTH PORTICO OF THE ERECHTHEUM. Greek Architecture. 101 instead of upon the frieze, as in a Doric building (cf. Fig. 56). Above were the usual coffered slabs. The same illustration shows a well-preserved and finely pro- portioned doorway, but unfortunately leaves the details of its ornamentation indistinct. The Ionic order was much used in the Greek cities of Asia Minor for peripteral temples. The most consider- able remains of such buildings, at Ephesus, Priene, etc. , FIG. 70. TEMPLE OF WINGLESS VICTORY. Athens. belong to the fourth century or later. In Greece proper there is no known instance of a peripteral Ionic temple, but the order was sometimes used for small prostyle and amphiprostyle buildings, such as the Temple of Wingless Victory in Athens (Fig. 70). Furthermore, Ionic columns were sometimes employed in the interior of Doric temples, as at Bassae in Arcadia and (probably) in the temple built by Scopas at Tegea. In the 102 A History of Greek Art. Propylaea or gateway of the Athenian Acropolis we even find the Doric and Ionic orders juxtaposed, the exterior architecture being Doric and the interior Ionic, with no wall to separate them. One more interesting occurrence of the Ionic order in Greece proper may be mentioned, viz., in the Philippeum at Olympia (about 336 B.C.). This is a circular building, surrounded by an Ionic col- onnade. Still other types of building afforded oppor- tunity enough for the employment of this style. After what has been said of the gradual changes in the" Doric order, it will be understood that the Ionic order was not the same in the sixth century as in the fifth, nor in the fifth the same as in the third. The most striking change concerns the spiral roll of the capital. In the good period the portion of this member which connects the volutes is bounded below by a depressed curve, graceful and vig- orous. With the gradual degradation of taste this curve tended to become a straight line, the result being the unlovely, mechanical form shown in Fig. 71 (from a building of Ptolemy Philadelphus, who reigned from 283 to 246 B.C.). Better formed capitals than this contin- ued for some time to be made in Greek lands ; but the type just shown, or rather something resembling it in the disagreeable feature noted, became canonical with Roman architects. FIG. 71. IONIC CAPITAL FROM SAMOTHRACE. (From Puchstein, " Das ionische Capitell," Fig. 34.) Greek Architecture. 103 FIG. 72. CORINTHIAN CAPITAL FROM EPIDAURUS. The Corinthian order, as it is commonly called, hardly deserves to be called a distinct order. Its only peculiar feature is the capital ; otherwise it agrees with the Ionic order. The Corinthian capital is said to have been in- vented in the fifth century ; and a soli- tary specimen, of a meager and rudimen- tary type, found in 1812 in the Temple of Apollo at Bassae, but since lost, was perhaps an original part of that building (about 430 B. C. ). At present the earliest extant specimens are from the interior of a round building of the fourth cen- tury near Epidaurus in Argolis (Fig. 72).* It was from such a form as this that the luxuriant type of Corinthian capital so much in favor with Roman architects and their public was derived. On the other hand, the form shown in Fig. 73, from a little building erected in 334 B. C. or soon after, is a variant which seems to have left no lineal successors. In its usual form the Corinthian capital has a cylindrical core, which expands slightly toward the top so as to become bell-shaped ; around the lower part of this core are two rows of conventionalized acanthus leaves, eight in each row ; from these rise eight princi- pal stalks (each, in fully developed examples, wrapped about its base with an acanthus leaf) which combine, two and two, to form four volutes (helices), one under * For some reason or other the particular capital shown in our illustration was not used in the building, but it is of the same model as those actually used, except that the edge of the abacus is not finished. IO4 A History of Greek Art. each corner of the abacus, while smaller stalks, branch- ing from the first, cover the rest of the upper part of the core ; there is commonly a floral ornament on the middle of each face at the top ; finally the abacus has, in plan, the form of a square whose sides have been hollowed out and whose corners have been truncated. In the form shown in Fig. 73 we find, first, a row of sixteen simple leaves, like those of a reed, with the points of a second row showing between them ; then a single row of eight acanthus leaves ; then the scroll-work, support- ing a palmette on each side ; and finally an abacus whose profile is made up of a trochilus and an ovolo. This capital, though extremely elegant, is open to the charge of ap- pearing weak at its middle. There is a much less ornate variety, also reck- oned as C o r i n - thian, which has no scroll-work, but only a row of acanthus leaves with a row of reed leaves above them around a bell- FIG. 73. CORINTHIAN CAPITAL FROM THE CHO- RAGIC MONUMENT OF LYSICRATES. Athens. shaped core, the whole surmounted by a square abacus. In the Choragic Monument of Lysicrates the cornice has dentels, and this was always the case, so far as we know, where the Corinthian capital was used. In Corinthian buildings the anta, where met with, has a capital like that of the Greek Architecture. 105 column. But there is very little material to generalize from until we descend to Roman times. Some allusion has been made in the foregoing to other types of columnar buildings besides the temple. The principal ones of which remains exist are propylcea and stoas. Propylsea is the Greek name for a form of gateway, consisting essentially of a cross wall between side walls, with a portico on each front. Such gateways occur in many places as entrances to sacred precincts. The finest example, and one of the noblest monuments of Greek architecture, is that at the west end of the Athenian Acropolis. The stoa may be defined as a building having an open range of columns on at least one side. Usually its length was much greater than its depth. Stoas were often built in sacred precincts, as at Olympia, and also for secular purposes along public streets, as in Athens. These and other buildings into which the column entered as an integral feature involved no new architectural elements or principles. One highly important fact about Greek architecture has thus far been only touched upon ; that is, the liberal use it made of color. The ruins of Greek temples are to-day monochromatic, either glittering white, as is the temple at Sunium, or of a golden brown, as are the Parthenon and other buildings of Pentelic marble, or of a still warmer brown, as are the limestone temples of Paestum and Girgenti (Acragas). But this uniformity of tint is due only to time. A "White City," such as made the pride of Chicago in 1893, would have been unimaginable to an ancient Greek. Even to-day the attentive observer may sometimes see upon old Greek buildings, as, for example, upon ceiling-beams of the Parthenon, traces left by patterns from which the color has vanished. In other instances remains of actual io6 A History of Greek Art. color exist. So specks of blue paint may still be seen, or might a few years ago, on blocks belonging to the Athenian Propylaea. But our most abundant evidence for the original use of color comes from architectural fragments recently unearthed. During the excavation of Olympia (1875-81) this matter of the coloring of architecture was constantly in mind and a large body of facts relating to it was accumulated. Every new and important excavation adds to the store. At present our information is much fuller in regard to the polychromy of Doric than of Ionic buildings. It appears that, just as the forms and proportions of a building and of all its details were determined by precedent, yet not so abso- lutely as to leave no scope for the exercise of individual genius, so there was an established system in the color- ing of a building, yet a system which varied somewhat according to time and place and the taste of the archi- tect. The frontispiece attempts to suggest what the coloring of the Parthenon was like, and thus to illustrate the general scheme of Doric polychromy. The colors used were chiefly dark blue, sometimes almost black, and red ; green and yellow also occur, and some details were gilded. The coloration of the building was far from total. Plain surfaces, as walls, were unpainted. So too were the columns, including, probably, their capitals, except between the annulets. Thus color was confined to the upper members the triglyphs, the under surface (soffit) of the cornice, the sima, the anta- capitals (cf. Fig. 54), the ornamental details generally, the coffers of the ceiling, and the backgrounds of sculp- ture.* The triglyphs, regulae, and mutules were blue ; the taenia of the architrave and the soffit of the cornice * Our frontispiece gives the backgrounds of the metopes as plain, but this is probably an error. Greek Architecture. 107 between the mutules with the adjacent narrow bands were red ; the backgrounds of sculpture, either blue or red ; the hawk's-beak molding, alternating blue and red ; and so on. The principal uncertainty regards the treat- ment of the unpainted members. Were these left of a glittering white, or were they toned down, in the case of marble buildings, by some application or other, so as to contrast less glaringly with the painted portions ? The latter supposition receives some confirmation from Vitruvius, a Roman writer on architecture of the age of Augustus, and seems to some modern writers to be demanded by aesthetic considerations. On the other hand, the evidence of the Olympia buildings points the other way. Perhaps the actual practice varied. As for the coloring of Ionic architecture, we know that the capital of the column was painted, but otherwise our information is very scanty. If it be asked what led the Greeks to a use of color so strange to us and, on first acquaintance, so little to our taste, it may be answered that possibly the example of their neighbors had something to do with it. The architecture of Egypt, of Mesopotamia, of Persia, was polychromatic. But probably the practice of the Greeks was in the main an inheritance from the early days of their own civilization. According to a well-supported theory, the Doric temple of the historical period is a translation into stone or marble of a primitive edifice whose walls were of sun-dried bricks and whose columns and entablature were of wood. Now it is natural and 'appropriate to paint wood ; and we may suppose that the taste for a partially colored architecture was thus formed. This theory does not indeed explain every- thing. It does not, for example, explain why the columns or the architrave should be uncolored. In io8 A History of Greek Art. short, the Greek system of polychromy presents itself to us as a largely arbitrary system. More interesting than the question of origin is the question of aesthetic effect. Was the Greek use of color in good taste ? It is not easy to answer with a simple yes or no. Many of the attempts to represent the facts by restorations on paper have been crude and vulgar enough. On the other hand, some experiments in decorating modern buildings with color, in a fashion, to be sure, much less liberal than that of ancient Greece, have produced pleasing results. At present the ques- tion is rather one of faith than of sight ; and most students of the subject have faith to believe that the appearance of a Greek temple in all its pomp of color was not only sumptuous, but harmonious and appro- priate. When we compare the architecture of Greece with that of other countries, we must be struck with the remarkable degree in which the former adhered to established usage, both in the general plan of a building and in the forms and proportions of each feature. Some measure of adherence to precedent is indeed implied in the very existence of an architectural style. What is meant is that the Greek measure was unusual, perhaps unparalleled. Yet the following of established canons was not pushed to a slavish extreme. A fine Greek temple could not be built according to a hard and fast rule. While the architect refrained from bold and law- less innovations, he yet had scope to exercise his genius. The differences between the Parthenon and any other contemporary Doric temple would seem slight, when regarded singly ; but the preeminent perfection of the Parthenon lay in just those skilfully calculated differ- ences. Greek Architecture. 109 A Greek columnar building is extremely simple in form.* The outlines of an ordinary temple are those of an oblong rectangular block surmounted by a triangular roof. With a qualification to be explained presently, all the lines of the building, except those of the roof, are either horizontal or perpendicular. The most compli- cated Greek columnar buildings known, the Erechtheum and the Propylaea of the Athenian Acropolis, are sim- plicity itself when compared to a Gothic cathedral, with its irregular plan, its towers, its wheel windows, its mul- titudinous diagonal lines. The extreme simplicity which characterizes the gen- eral form of a Greek building extends also to its sculp- tured and painted ornaments. In the Doric style these are very sparingly used ; and even the Ionic style, though more luxuriant, seems reserved in comparison with the wealth of ornamental detail in a Gothic cathe- dral. Moreover, the Greek ornaments are simple in character. Examine again the hawk's-beak, the egg- and-dart, the leaf-and-dart, the astragal, the guilloche, the honeysuckle, the meander or fret. These are almost the only continuous patterns in use in Greek architecture. Each consists of a small number of ele- ments recurring in unvarying order ; a short section is enough to give the entire pattern. Contrast this with the string-course in the nave of the Cathedral of Amiens, where the motive of the design undergoes constant variation, no piece exactly duplicating its neighbor, or with the intricate interlacing patterns of Arabic decora- tion, and you will have a striking illustration of the Greek love for the finite and comprehensible. When it was said just now that the main lines of a * The substance of this paragraph and the following is bo Boutmy, " Philosophic de 1' Architecture en Grece" (Paris, 1870). borrowed from no A History of Greek Art. Greek temple are either horizontal or perpendicular, the statement called for qualification. The elevations of the most perfect of Doric buildings, the Parthenon, could not be drawn with a ruler. Some of the apparently straight lines are really curved. The stylobate is not level, but convex, the rise of the curve amounting to 355 of the length of the building ; the architrave has also a rising curve, but slighter than that of the stylo- bate. Then again, many of the lines that would com- monly be taken for vertical are in reality slightly in- clined. The columns slope inward and so do the prin- cipal surfaces of the building, while the anta-capitals slope forward. These refinements, or some of them, have been observed in several other buildings. They are commonly regarded as designed to obviate certain optical illusions supposed to arise in their absence. But perhaps, as one writer has suggested, their principal office was to save the building from an appearance of mathematical rigidity, to give it something of the semblance of a living thing. Be that as it may, these manifold subtle curves and sloping lines testify to the extraordinary nicety of Greek workmanship. A column of the Parthenon, with its inclination, its tapering, its entasis, and its fluting, could not have been constructed without the most conscientious skill. In fact, the capabilities of the workmen kept pace with the demands of the architects. No matter how delicate the adjustment to be made, the task was perfectly achieved. And when it came to the execution of ornamental details, these were wrought with a free hand and, in the best period, with fine artistic feeling. The wall-band of the Erechtheum is one of the most exquisite things which Greece has left us. Greek Architecture. in Simplicity in general form, harmony of proportion, refinement of line these are the great features of Greek columnar architecture. .One other type of Greek building, into which the column does not enter, or enters only in a very subor- dinate way, remains to be mentioned the theater. Theaters abounded in Greece. Every considerable city and many a smaller place had at least one, and the FIG. 74. THEATER. Epidaurus. ruins of these structures rank with temples and walls of fortification among the commonest classes of ruins in Greek lands. .But in a sketch of Greek art they may be rapidly dismissed. That part of the theater which was occupied by spectators the auditorium, as we may call it was commonly built into a natural slope, helped out by means of artificial embankments and supporting walls. There was no roof. The building, therefore, had no exterior, or none to speak of. Such beauty 112 A History of Greek Art. as it possessed was due mainly to its proportions. The theater at the sanctuary of Asclepius near Epidaurus, the work of the same architect who built the round building with the Corinthian columns referred to on page 103, was distinguished in ancient times for "harmony and beauty," as the Greek traveler, Pausanias (about 165 A. D. ), puts it. It is fortunately one of the best preserved. Fig. 74, a view taken from a considerable distance, will give some idea of that quality which Pausanias justly admired. Fronting the auditorium was the stage building, of which little but foundations remains anywhere. So far as can be ascertained, this stage building had but small architectural pretensions until the post-classical period (i. e., after Alexander). But there was opportunity for elegance as well as con- venience in the form given to the stone or marble seats with which the auditorium was provided. CHAPTER IV. GREEK SCULPTURE. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. IN the Mycenaean period, as we have seen, the art of sculpture had little existence, except for the making of small images and the decoration of small objects. We have now to take up the story of the rise of this art to an independent and commanding position, of its per- fection and its subsequent decline. The beginner must not expect to find this story told with as much fulness and certainty as is possible in dealing with the art of the Renaissance or any more modern period. The impossi- bility of equal fulness and certainty here will become apparent when we consider what our materials for con- structing a history of Greek sculpture are. First, we have a quantity of notices, more or less rele- vant, in ancient Greek and Roman authors, chiefly of the time of the Roman Empire. These notices are of the most miscellaneous description. They come from writers of the most unlike tastes and the most unequal degrees of trustworthiness. They are generally very vague, leaving most that we want to know unsaid. And they have such a haphazard character that, when taken all together, they do not begin to cover the field. Nothing like all the works of the greater sculptors, let alone the lesser ones, are so much as mentioned by name in extant ancient literature. Secondly, we have several hundreds of original in- scriptions belonging to Greek works of sculpture and containing the names of the artists who made them. It "3 114 A History of Greek Art. was a common practice, in the case especially of inde- pendent statues in the round, for the sculptor to attach his signature, generally to the pedestal. Unfortunately, while great numbers of these inscribed pedestals have been preserved for us, it is very rarely that we have the statues which once belonged on them. Moreover, the artists' names which we meet on the pedestals are in a large proportion of cases names not even mentioned by our literary sources. In fact, there is only one in- disputable case where we possess both a statue and the pedestal belonging to it, the latter inscribed with the name of an artist known to us from literary tradition. (See pages 212-3.) Thirdly, we have the actual remains of Greek sculp- ture, a constantly accumulating store, yet only an insignificant remnant of what once existed. These works have suffered sad disfigurement. Not one life- sized figure has reached us absolutely intact ; but few have escaped serious mutilation. Most of those found before the beginning of this century, and some of those found since, have been subjected to a process known as " restoration." Missing parts have been supplied, often in the most arbitrary and tasteless manner, and injured surfaces, e. g., of faces, have been polished, with irrep- arable damage as the result. Again, it is important to recognize that the creations of Greek sculpture which have been preserved to us are partly original Greek works, partly copies executed in Roman times from Greek originals. Originals, and especially important originals, are scarce. The statues of gold and ivory have left not a vestige behind. Those of bronze, once numbered by thousands, went long ago, with few exceptions, into the melting-pot. Even sculptures in marble, though the material was less valu- Greek Sculpture. 115 able, have been thrown into the lime-kiln or used as building stone or wantonly mutilated or ruined by neg- lect. There does not exist to-day a single certified original work by any one of the six greatest sculptors of Greece, except the Hermes of Praxiteles (see page 221). Copies are more plentiful. As nowadays many museums and private houses have on their walls copies of paintings by the " old masters," so, and far more usually, the pub- lic and private buildings of imperial Rome and of many of the cities under her sway were adorned with copies of famous works by the sculptors of ancient Greece. Any piece of sculpture might thus be multiplied indefinitely ; and so it happens that we often possess several copies, or even some dozens of copies, of one and the same orig- inal. Most of the masterpieces of Greek sculpture which are known to us at all are known only in this way. The question therefore arises, How far are these copies to be trusted ? It is impossible to answer in gen- eral terms. The instances are vevy few where we possess at once the original and a copy. The best case of the kind is afforded by Fig. 75, compared with Fig. 132. Here the head, fore-arms, and feet of the copy are modern and consequently do not enter into consider- ation. Limiting one's attention to the antique parts of the figure, one sees that it is a tolerably close, and yet a hard and lifeless, imitation of the original. This gives us some measure of the degree of fidelity we may expect in favorable cases. Generally speaking, we have to form our estimate of the faithfulness of a copy by the quality of its workmanship and by a comparison of it with other copies, where such exist. Often we find two or more copies agreeing with one another as closely as possible. This shows and the conclusion is confirmed by other evidence that means existed in Roman times of repro- n6 A History of Greek Art. ducing statues with the help of measurements mechan- ically taken. At the same time, a comparison of copies makes it apparent that copyists, even when aiming to be exact in the main, often treated details and accessories with a good deal of free- dom. Of course, too, the skill and conscientiousness of the copyists varied enormously. Fi- nally, 'besides copies, we have to reckon with varia- tions and modern- izations in every degree of earlier works. Under these circumstances it will easily be seen that the task of recon- structing a lost origi- nal from extant imitations is a very delicate and perilous one. Who could adequately appreci- ate the Sistine Ma- FIG. 75. -COPY OF A CARYATID OF THE ERECH- donna, if the inimi- table touch of Raphael were known to us only at second-hand ? Greek Sculpture. 117 Any history of Greek sculpture attempts to piece to- gether the several classes of evidence above described. It classifies the actual remains, seeking to assign to each piece its place and date of production and to infer from direct examination and comparison the progress of artistic methods and ideas. And this it does with con- stant reference to what literature and inscriptions have to tell us. But in the fragmentary state of our materials, it is evident that the whole subject must be beset with doubt. Great and steady progress has indeed been made since Winckelmann, the founder of the science of classical archaeology, produced the first "History of Ancient Art" (published in 1763) ; but twilight still reigns over many an important question. This general warning should be borne in mind in reading this or any other hand-book of the subject. We may next take up the materials and the technical processes of Greek sculpture. These may be classified as follows : (1) Wood. Wood was often, if not exclusively, used for the earliest Greek temple-images, those rude xoana, of which many survived into the historical period, to be regarded with peculiar veneration. We even hear of wooden statues made in the developed period of Greek art. But this was certainly exceptional. Wood plays no part worth mentioning in the fully developed sculp- ture of Greece, except as it entered into the making of gold and ivory statues or of the cheaper substitutes for these. (2) Stone and marble. Various uncrystallized lime- stones were frequently used in the archaic period and here and there even in the fifth century. But white marble, in which Greece abounds, came also early into n8 A History of Greek Art. use, and its immense superiority to limestone for statuary purposes led to the abandonment of the latter. The choicest varieties of marble were the Parian and Pentelic (cf. page 77). Both of these were exported to every part of the Greek world. A Greek marble statue or group is often not made of a single piece. Thus the Aphrodite of Melos (page 249) was made of two principal pieces, the junction coming just above the drapery, while several smaller parts, including the left arm, were made separately and attached. The Laocoon group (page 265), which Pliny expressly alleges to have been made of a single block, is in reality made of six. Often the head was made separately from the body, sometimes of a finer quality of marble, and then inserted into a socket prepared for it in the neck of the figure. And very often, when the statue was mainly of a single block, small pieces were attached, sometimes in considerable numbers. Of course the joining was done with extreme nicety, and would have escaped ordinary observation. In the production of a modern piece of marble sculp- ture, the artist first makes a clay model and then a mere workman produces from this a marble copy. In the best period of Greek art, on the other hand, there seems to have been no mechanical copying of finished models. Preliminary drawings or even clay models, perhaps small, there must often have been to guide the eye ; but the sculptor, instead of copying with the help of exact measurements, struck out freely, as genius and training inspired him. If he made a mistake, the result was not fatal, for he could repair his error by attaching a fresh piece of marble. Yet even so, the ability to work in this way implies marvelous precision of eye and hand. To this ability and this method we may ascribe some- Greek Sculpture. 119 thing of the freedom, the vitality, and the impulsiveness of Greek marble sculpture qualities which the mechani- cal method of production tends to destroy. Observe too that, while pediment-groups, metopes, friezes, and reliefs upon pedestals would often be executed by sub- ordinates following the design of the principal artist, any important single statue or group in marble was in all probability chiseled by the very hand of the master. Another fact of importance, a fact which few are able to keep constantly enough in their thoughts, is that Greek marble sculpture was always more or less painted. This is proved both by statements in ancient authors and by the fuller and more explicit evidence of numberless actual remains. (See especially pages 148, 247.) From these sources we learn that eyes, eyebrows, hair, and perhaps lips were regularly painted, and that draperies and other accessories were often painted in whole or in part. As regards the treatment of flesh the evidence is conflicting. Some instances are reported where the flesh of men was colored a reddish brown, as in the sculpture of Egypt. But the evidence seems to me to warrant the inference that this was unusual in marble sculpture. On the ' ' Alexander ' ' sarcophagus the nude flesh has been by some process toned down to an ivory tint, and this treatment may have been the rule, although most sculptures which retain remains of color show no trace of this. Observe that wherever color was applied, it was laid on in ' ' flat ' ' tints, i. e. , not graded or shaded. , This polychromatic character of Greek marble sculp- ture is at variance with what we moderns have been accustomed to since the Renaissance. By practice and theory we have been taught that sculpture and painting are entirely distinct arts. And in the austere renuncia- I2O A History of Greek Art. tion by .sculpture of all color there has even been seen a special distinction, a claim to precedence in the hierarchy of the arts. The Greeks had no such idea. The sculpture of the older nations about them was poly- chromatic ; their own early sculpture in wood and coarse stone was almost necessarily so ; their architecture, with which sculpture was often associated, was so likewise. The coloring of marble sculpture, then, was a natural result of the influences by which that sculpture was molded. And, of course, the Greek eye took pleasure in the combination of form and color, and presumably would have found pure white figures like ours dull and cold. We are better circumstanced for judging Greek taste in this matter than in the matter of colored archi- tecture, for we possess Greek sculptures which have kept their coloring almost intact. A sight of the ' ' Alex- ander ' ' sarcophagus, if it does not revolutionize our own taste, will at least dispel any fear that a Greek artist was capable of outraging beautiful form by a vulgarizing addition. (3) Bronze. This material (an alloy of copper with tin and sometimes lead), always more expensive than marble, was the favorite material of some of the most eminent sculptors (Myron, Polyclitus, Lysippus) and for certain purposes was always preferred. The art of casting small, solid bronze images goes far back into the prehistoric period in Greece. At an early date, too (we cannot say how early), large bronze statues could be made of a number of separate pieces, shaped by the hammer and riveted together. Such a work was seen at Sparta by the traveler Pausanias, and was regarded by him as the most ancient existing statue in bronze. A great impulse must have been given to bronze sculpture by the introduction of the process of hollow-casting. Greek Sculpture. 121 Pausanias repeatedly attributes the invention of this process to Rhoecus and Theodoras, two Samian artists, who flourished apparently early in the sixth century. This may be substantially correct, but the process is much more likely to have been borrowed from Egypt than invented independently. In producing a bronze statue it is necessary first to make an exact clay model. This done, the usual Greek practice seems to have been to dismember the model and take a casting of each part separately. The several bronze pieces were then carefully united by rivets or solder, and small defects were repaired by the insertion of quadrangular patches of bronze. The eye-sockets were always left hollow in the casting, and eyeballs of glass, metal, or other materials, imitating cornea and iris, were inserted.* Finally, the whole was gone over with appropriate tools, the hair, for example, being fur- rowed with a sharp graver and thus receiving a peculiar, metallic definiteness of texture. A hollow bronze statue being much lighter than one in marble and much less brittle, a sculptor could be much bolder in posing a figure of the former material than one of the latter. Hence when a Greek bronze statue was copied in marble in Roman times, a disfigur- ing support, not present in the original, had often to be added (cf. Figs. 101, 104, etc.). The existence of such a support in a marble work is, then, one reason among others for assuming a bronze original. Other indica- tions pointing the same way are afforded by a peculiar sharpness of edge, e.g. , of the eyelids and the eyebrows, and by the metallic treatment of the hair. These points are well illustrated by Fig. 76. Notice especially the curls, which in the original would have been made of * Marble statues also sometimes had inserted eyes. 122 A History of Greek Art. separate strips of bronze, twisted and attached after the casting of the figure. Bronze reliefs were not cast, but produced by hammering. This is what is called repousse work. These bronze reliefs were of small size, and were used for ornamenting helmets, cuirasses, mirrors, and so on. (4) Gold and ivory. Chryselephantine statues, i.e., statues of gold and ivory, must, from the costliness of the materials, have been always com- paratively rare. Most of them, though not all, were temple -images, and the most famous ones were of colossal size. We are very imperfectly in- formed as to how these figures were made. The colossal ones contained a strong framework of timbers and metal bars, over which was built a figure of wood. To this the gold and ivory were attarVipH ivnrv be- auacn eu > ivory I m g use( J for flesh The gold on the Athena FIG. 76. HEAD OF THE FARNESE ATHENA. Naples. (From Furtwangler, " Meisterwerke der griechischen Plastik," Fig. 16.) and gold for all other parts. of the Parthenon (cf. page 186) weighed a good deal over a ton. But costly as these works were, the ad- Greek Sculpture. 123 miration felt for them seems to have been untainted by any thought of that fact. (5) Terra-cotta. This was used at all periods for small figures, a few inches high, immense numbers of which have been preserved to us. But large terra-cotta figures, such as were common in Etruria, were probably quite exceptional in Greece. Greek sculpture may be classified, according to the purposes which it served, under the following heads : 1 i ) Architectural sculpture. A temple could hardly be considered complete unless it was adorned with more or less of sculpture. The chief place for such sculpture was in the pediments and especially in the principal or eastern pediment. Relief-sculpture might be applied to Doric metopes or an Ionic frieze. And finally, single statues or groups might be placed, as acroteria, upon the apex and lower corners of a pediment. Other sacred buildings besides temples might be similarly adorned. But we hear very little of sculpture on secular buildings. (2) Cult-images. As a rule, every temple or shrine contained at least one statue of the divinity, or of each divinity, worshiped there. (3) Votive sculptures. It was the habit of the Greeks to present to their divinities all sorts of objects in recog- nition of past favors or in hope of favors to come. Among these votive objects or anathemata works of sculpture occupied a large and important place. The subjects of such sculptures were various. Statues of the god or goddess to whom the dedication was made were common ; but perhaps still commoner were figures representing human persons, either the dedicators them- selves or others in whom they were nearly interested. Under this latter head fall most of the many statues of 124 "4 History of Greek Art. victors in the athletic games. These were set up in temple precincts, like that of Zeus at Olympia, that of Apollo at Delphi, or that of Athena on the Acropolis of Athens, and were, in theory at least, intended rather as thank-offerings than as means of glorifying the victors themselves. (4) Sepulchral sculpture. Sculptured grave monu- ments were common in Greece at least as early as the sixth century. The most usual monument was a slab of marble the form varying according to place and time sculptured with an idealized representation in relief of the deceased person, often with members of his family. (5) Honorary statues. Statues representing dis- tinguished men, contemporary or otherwise, could be set up by state authority in secular places or in sanctu- aries. The earliest known case of this kind is that of Harmodius and Aristogiton, shortly after 510 B. C. (cf. pages 160-4). The practice gradually became common, reaching an extravagant development in the period after Alexander. (6) Sculpture used merely as ornament, and having no sacred or public character. This class belongs mainly, if not wholly, to the latest period of Greek art. It would be going beyond our evidence to say that never, in the great age of Greek sculpture, was a statue or a relief produced merely as an ornament for a private house or the interior of a secular building. But certain it is that the demand for such things before the time of Alexander, if it existed at all, was inconsiderable. It may be neglected in a broad survey of the conditions of artistic production in the great age. The foregoing list, while not quite exhaustive, is suf- ficiently so for present purposes. It will be seen how inspiring and elevating was the role assigned to the Greek Sculpture. 125 sculptor in Greece. His work, destined to be seen by intelligent and sympathetic multitudes, appealed, not to the coarser elements of their nature, but to the most serious and exalted. Hence Greek sculpture of the best period is always pure and noble. The grosser aspects of Greek life, which flaunt themselves shamelessly in Attic comedy, as in some of the designs upon Attic vases, do not invade the province of this art. It may be proper here to say a word in explanation of that frank and innocent nudity which is so characteristic a trait of the best Greek art. The Greek admiration for the masculine body and the willingness to display it were closely bound up with the extraordinary importance in Greece of gymnastic exercises and contests and with the habits which these engendered. As early as the seventh century, if not earlier, the competitors in the foot-race at Olympia dispensed with the loin-cloth, which had pre- viously been the sole covering worn. In other Olympic contests the example thus set was not followed till some time later, but in the gymnastic exercises of every-day life the same custom must have early prevailed. Thus in contrast to primitive Greek feeling and to the feeling of ' ' barbarians ' ' generally, the exhibition by men among men of the naked body came to be regarded as some- thing altogether honorable. There could not be better evidence of this than the fact that the archer-god, Apollo, the purest god in the Greek pantheon, does not deign in Greek art to veil the glory of his form. Greek sculpture had a strongly idealizing bent. Gods and goddesses were conceived in the likeness of human beings, but human beings freed from every blemish, made august and beautiful by the artistic imagination. The subjects of architectural sculpture were mainly mythological, historical scenes being very rare in purely 126 A History of Greek Art. Greek work ; and these legendary themes offered little temptation to a literal copying of every-day life. But what is most noteworthy is that even in the representa- tion of actual human persons, <?. g., in athlete statues and upon grave monuments, Greek sculpture in the best period seems not to have even aimed at exact portraiture. The development of realistic portraiture belongs mainly to the age of Alexander and his succes- sors. Mr. Ruskin goes so far as to say that a Greek ' ' never expresses personal character," and "never expresses momentary passion."* These are reckless verdicts, needing much qualification. For the art of the fourth century they will not do at all, much less for the later period. But they may be of use if they lead us to note the preference for the typical and permanent with which Greek sculpture begins, and the very gradual way in which it progresses toward the expression of the indi- vidual and transient. However, even in the best period the most that we have any right to speak of is a prevailing tendency. Greek art was at all times very much alive, and the student must be prepared to find exceptions to any formula that can be laid down. * " Aratra Pentelici," Lecture VI., \\ 191, 193. CHAPTER V. THE ARCHAIC PERIOD OF GREEK SCULPTURE. FIRST HALF : 625(?)~55O B. C. THE date above suggested for the beginning of the period with which we have first to deal must not be re- garded as making any pretense to exactitude. We have no means of assigning a definite date to any of the most primitive-looking pieces of Greek sculpture. All that can be said is that works which can be confidently dated about the middle of the sixth century show such a degree of advancement as implies more than half a century of development since the first rude beginnings. Tradition and the more copious evidence of actual remains teach us that these early attempts at sculpture in stone or marble were not confined to any one spot or narrow region. On the contrary, the centers of artistic activity were numerous and widely diffused the islands of Crete, Paros, and Naxos ; the Ionic cities of Asia Minor and the adjacent islands of Chios and Samos ; in Greece proper, Bceotia, Attica, Argolis, Arcadia, Laconia ; in Sicily, the Greek colony Selinus ; and doubtless many others. It is very difficult to make out how far these different spots were independent of one another ; how far, in other words, we have a right to speak of local ' ' schools ' ' of sculpture. Certainly there was from the first a good deal of action and reaction be- tween some of these places, and one chief problem of the subject is to discover the really originative centers of artistic impulse, and to trace the spread of artistic types 127 128 A History of Greek Art. and styles and methods from place to place. In- stead of attempting here to discuss or decide this difficult question, it will be better simply to pass in review a few typical works of the early archaic period from various sites. The first place may be given to a marble image (Fig. 77) found in 1878 on the island of Delos, that ancient center of Apolline worship for the lonians. On the left side of the figure is en- graved in early Greek characters a metrical in- scription, recording that the statue was dedicated to Artemis by one Nicandra of Naxos. Whether it was in- tended to represent the goddess Artemis or the woman Nicandra, we cannot tell ; nor is the question of much im- portance to us. We have here an extremely FIG. ^.-ARCHAIC FEMALE FIGURE PROM rude attempt to repre- DELOS. Athens, National Museum. sent a draped female The Archaic Period of Greek Sculpture. 129 form. The figure stands stiffly erect, the feet close together, the arms hanging straight down, the face looking directly forward. The garment envelops the body like a close-fitting sheath, without a suggestion of folds. The trunk of the body is flat or nearly so at the back, while in front the prominence of the breasts is suggested by the simple device of two planes, an upper and a lower, meeting at an angle. The shapeless arms were not detached from the sides, except just at the waist. Below the girdle the body is bounded by parallel planes in front and behind and is rounded off at the sides. A short projection at the bottom, slightly rounded and partly divided, does duty for the feet. The features of the face are too much battered to be com- mented upon. The most of the hair falls in a rough mass upon the back, but on either side a bunch, divided. by grooves into four locks, detaches itself and is brought forward upon the breast. This primitive image is not an isolated specimen of its type. Several similar figures or fragments of figures have been found on the island of Delos, in Bceotia, and elsewhere. A small statuette of this type, found at Olympia, but probably produced at Sparta, has its ugly face tolerably preserved. Another series of figures, much more numerously rep- resented, gives us the corresponding type of male figure. One of the earliest examples of this series is shown in Fig. 78, a life-sized statue of Naxian marble,, found on the island of Thera in 1836. The figure is completely nude. The attitude is like that of the female type just described, except that the left foot is advanced. Other statues, agreeing with this one in attitude, but showing various stages of development, have been found in many places, from Samos on the east to Actium on the west. Several features of this class of figures have been thought 130 A History of Greek Art. to betray Egyptian influence.* The rigid position might be adopted independently by primitive sculpture anywhere. But the fact that the left leg is invariably ad- vanced, the narrow- ness of the hips, and the too high po- sition freq u e n 1 1 y given to the ears did this group of coincidences with the ste reotyped Egyptian standing figures come about without imitation ? There is no histor- ical difficulty in the way of assuming Egyptian influence, for as early as the seventh century Greeks certainly visited Egypt and it was perhaps in this century that the Greek colony of Nau crat is was founded in the delta Here was a chance for Greeks to see FIG. 78. "APOLLO " OF THERA. Athens, National Museum. of the Nile. * See Wolters's edition of Friederichs's " Gipsabgiisse antiker Bildwerke," pages n, 12. The Archaic Period of Greek Sculpture. 131 Egyptian statues ; and besides, Egyptian statuettes may have reached Greek shores in the way of commerce. But be the truth about this question what it may, the early Greek sculptors were as far as possible from slavishly imitating a fixed prototype. They used their own eyes and strove, each in his own way, to render what they saw. This is evident, when the different ex- amples of the class of figures now under discussion are passed in review. Our figure from Thera is hardly more than a first at- tempt. There is very little of anatomical detail, and what there is is not correct ; especially the form and the muscles of the abdomen are not understood. The head presents a number of characteristics which were destined long to persist in Greek sculpture. Such are the protuberant eyeballs, the prominent cheek-bones, the square, protruding chin. Such, too, is the forma- tion of the mouth, with its slightly upturned corners a feature almost, though not quite, universal in Greek faces for more than a century. This is the sculptor's childlike way of imparting a look of cheerfulness to the countenance, and with it often goes an upward slant of the eyes from the inner to the outer corners. In repre- senting this youth as wearing long hair, the sculptor fol- lowed the actual fashion of the times, a fashion not abandoned till the fifth century and in Sparta not till later. The appearance of the hair over the forehead and temples should be noticed. It is arranged sym- metrically in flat spiral curls, five curls on each side. Symmetry in the disposition of the front hair is constant in early Greek sculpture, and some scheme or other of spiral curls is extremely common. It was at one time thought that these nude standing figures all represented Apollo. It is now certain that 132 A History of Greek Art. Apollo was sometimes intended, but equally certain that the same type was used for men. Greek sculpture had not yet learned to differentiate divine from human beings. The so-called "Apollo" of Tenea (Fig. 79), probably in reality a grave-statue representing the deceased, was found on the site of the ancient Tenea, a village in the territory of Corinth. It is unusually well preserved, there being nothing missing except the middle portion of the right arm, which has been restored. This figure shows great improvement over his fellow from Thera. The rigid attitude, to be sure, is preserved unchanged, save for a slight bending of the arms at the elbows ; and we meet again the promi- nent eyes, cheek-bones, and chin, and the smiling mouth. But the arms are much more detached from the sides and the modeling of the figure generally is much more de- tailed. There are still faults in plenty, but some parts are rendered very well, particularly the lower legs and feet, and the figure seems alive. The position of the feet, flat upon the ground and parallel to one another, shows us how to complete in imagination the "Apollo" FIG. 79. "APOLLO" OF TENEA. Munich. The Archaic Period of Greek Sculpture. 133 of Thera and other mutilated members of the series. Greek sculpture even in its earliest period could not limit itself to single standing figures. The desire to adorn the pediments of temples and temple-like build- ings gave rise to more complex compositions. The earliest pediment-sculptures known were found on the Acropolis of Athens in the excavations of 1885-90 (see page 147). The most primitive of these is a low relief FIG. 80. ARCHAIC PEDIMENT-FIGURES. Athens, Acropolis Museum. of soft poros (see page 78), representing Heracles slaying the many-headed hydra. Somewhat later, but still very rude, is the group shown in Fig. 80, which once occupied the right-hand half of a pediment. The material here is a harder sort of poros, and the figures are practically in the round, though on account of the connection with the background the work has to be classed as high relief. We see a triple mon- ster, or rather three monsters, with human heads and trunks and arms the human bodies passing into long 134 A History of Greek Art. snaky bodies coiled together. A single pair of wings was divided between the two outermost of the three beings, while snakes' heads, growing out of the human bodies, rendered the aspect of the group still more porten- tous. The center of the pediment was probably occupied by a figure of Zeus, hurling his thunder- bolt at this strange enemy. We have therefore here a scene from one of the favorite subjects of Greek art at all periods the gigan- tomacky, or battle of gods and giants. Fig. 8 1 gives a bet- ter idea of the near- est of the three heads.* It was completely covered with a crust of paint, still pretty well preserved. The flesh was red ; the hair, moustache, and beard, blue ; the irises of the eyes, green ; the eye- brows, edges of the eyelids, and pupils, black. A con- siderable quantity of early poros sculptures was found on the Athenian Acropolis. These were all liberally painted. The poor quality of the material was thus largely or wholly concealed. FIG. 81. HEAD BELONGING TO AN ARCHAIC PEDIMENT-GROUP. Athens, Acro- polis Museum. * It is doubtful whether this head belongs where it is placed in Fig. 80, or in another pediment-group, of which fragments have been found. The Archaic Period of Greek Sculpture, 135 Fig. 82 shows another Athenian work, found on the Acropolis in 1864-65. It is of marble and is obviously of later date than the poros sculptures. In 1887 the pedestal of this statue was found, with a part of the right foot. An inscription on the pedestal shows that the statue was dedi- cated to some divinity, doubt- less Athena, whose precinct the Acropolis was. The figure then probably represents the dedicator, bring- ing a calf for sacrifice. The position of the body and legs is here the* same as in the "Apollo" figures, but the subject has com- pelled the sculp- tor to vary the position of the arms. Another difference from the "Apollo" figures lies in the fact that this statue is not wholly naked. The garment, however, is hard to make out, for it clings FIG. 82. MALE FIGURE CARRYING A CALF. Athens, Acropolis Museum. 136 A History of Greek Art. closely to the person of the wearer and betrays its exist- ence only along the edges. The sculptor had not yet learned to represent the folds of drapery. The British Museum possesses a series of ten seated figures of Parian marble, which were once ranged along the approach to an important temple of Apollo near Mi- letus. Fig. 83 shows three of these. They are placed in their assumed chronological order, the earliest furthest off. Only the first two belong in the period now under review. The figures are heavy and lumpish, and are enveloped, men and women alike, in draperies, which leave only the heads, the fore-arms, and the toes FIG. 83. SEATED FIGURES FROM MILETUS. London, British Museum. (From Overbeck, "Geschichte der griechischen Plastik," Vol. I., Fig. 8.) exposed. It is interesting to see the successive sculptors attacking the problem of rendering the folds of loose garments. Not until we reach the latest of the three statues do we find any depth given to the folds ; and The Archaic Period of Greek Sculpture. 137 that figure belongs distinctly in the latter half of the archaic period. FIG. 84. METOPE FROM SELINUS. Palermo. Transporting ourselves now from the eastern to the western confines of Greek civilization, we may take a 138 A History of Greek Art. look at a sculptured metope from Selinus in Sicily (Fig. 84). That city was founded, according to our best ancient authority, about the year 629 B.C., and the temple from which our metope is taken is certainly one of the oldest, if not the oldest, of the many temples of the place. The material of the metope, as of the whole temple, is a local poros, and the work is executed in high relief. The subject is Perseus cutting off the head of Medusa. The Gorgon is trying to run away the position given to her legs is used in early Greek sculp- ture and vase-painting to signify rapid motion but is overtaken by her pursuer. From the blood of Medusa sprang, according to the legend, the winged horse, Pegasus ; and the artist, wishing to tell as much of the story as possible, has introduced Pegasus into his composition, but has been forced to reduce him to mini- ature size. The goddess Athena, the protectress of Perseus, occupies what remains of the field. There is no need of dwelling in words on the ugliness of this relief, an ugliness only in part accounted for by the subject. The student should note that the body of each of the three figures is seen from the front, while the legs are in profile. The same distortion occurs in a second metope of this same temple, representing Heracles carry- ing off two prankish dwarfs who had tried to annoy him, and is in fact common in early Greek work. We have met something similar in Egyptian reliefs and paintings (cf. page 33), but this method of representing the human form is so natural to primitive art that we need not here assume Egyptian influence. The gar- ments of Perseus and Athena show so much progress in the representation of folds that one scruples to put this temple back into the seventh century, as some would have us do. Like the floras sculptures of Attica, these The Archaic Period of Greek Sculpture, 139 Selinus metopes seem to have been covered with color. Fig. 85 takes us back again to the island of Delos, where the statue came to light in 1877. It is of Parian marble, and is considerably less than life-sized. A female figure is here represented, the body unnaturally twisted at the hips, as in the Selinus metopes, the legs bent in the attitude of rapid motion. At the back there were wings, of which only the stumps now re- main. A compari- son of this statue with similar figures from the Athenian Acropolis has shown that the feet did not touch the pedestal, the drapery serving as a support. The intention of the artist, then, was to represent a flying figure, probably a Victory. The god- FIG. 85. ARCHAIC VICTORY (?), FROM DELOS. Athens, National Museum. dess is dressed in a chiton (shift), which shows no trace of folds above the girdle, while below the girdle, between the legs, there is a series of flat, shallow ridges. The face shows the usual archaic fea- 140 A History of Greek Art. tures the prominent eyeballs, cheeks, and chin, and the smiling mouth. The hair is represented as fastened by a sort of hoop, into which metallic ornaments, now lost, were inserted. As usual, the main mass of the hair falls straight behind, and several locks, the same num- ber on each side, are brought forward upon the breast. As usual, too, the front hair is disposed symmetrically ; in this case, a smaller and a larger flat curl on each side of the middle of the forehead are succeeded by a contin- uous tress of hair arranged in five scallops. If, as has been generally thought, this statue belongs on an inscribed pedestal which was found near it, then we have before us the work of one Archermus of Chios, known to us from literary tradition as the first sculptor to represent Victory with wings. At all events, this, if a Victory, is the earliest that we know. She awakens our interest, less for what she is in herself than because she is the forerunner of the magnificent Victories of de- veloped Greek art. Thus far we have not met a single work to which it is possible to assign a precise date. We have now the satisfaction of finding a chronological landmark in our path. This is afforded by some fragments of sculpture belonging to the old Temple of Artemis at Ephesus. The date of this temple is approximately fixed by the statement of Herodotus (I., 92) that most of its columns were presented by Crcesus, king of Lydia, whose reign lasted from 560 to 546 B. C. In the course of the excavations carried on for the British Museum upon the site of Ephesus there were brought to light, in 1872 and 1874, a few fragments of this sixth century edifice. Even some letters of Croesus's dedica- tory inscription have been found on the bases of the Ionic columns, affording a welcome confirmation to the The Archaic Period of Greek Sculpture. 141 testimony of Herodotus. It appears that the columns, or some of them, were treated in a very exceptional fashion, the low- est drums being adorned with re- lief-sculpture. The British Mu- seum authorities have partially re- stored one such drum (Fig. 86), though without guaranteeing that the pieces of sculpture here combined act- ually belong to the same column. The male figure is not very pre- possessing, but that is partly due to the battered condition of the face. Much more attractive is the female head, of which unfortu- nately only the back is seen in Our illustration. FIG. 86. LOWER PART OF ARCHAIC SCULPTURED COL- j , UMN FROM EPHESUS. London, British Museum. it Dears a Strong (From Overbeck, " Geschichte der griechischen family likeness to Plastik -" VoK L - Fig - 9>) the head of the Victory of Delos, but shows marked im- 142 A History of Greek Art. provement over that. Some bits of a sculptured cornice belonging to the same temple are also refined in style. In this group of reliefs, fragmentary though they are, we have an indication of the development attained by Ionic sculptors about the middle of the sixth century. For, of course, though Croesus paid for the columns, the work was executed by Greek artists upon the spot, and presumably by the best artists that could be secured. We may therefore use these sculptures as a standard by which to date other works, whose date is not fixed for us by external evidence. CHAPTER VI. THE ARCHAIC PERIOD OF GREEK SCULPTURE. SECOND HALF : 550-480 B. C. GREEK sculpture now enters upon a stage of develop- ment which possesses for the modern student a singular and potent charm. True, many traces still remain of the sculptor's imperfect mastery. He cannot pose his figures in perfectly easy attitudes, not even in reliefs, where the problem is easier than in sculpture in the round. His knowledge of human anatomy that is to say, of the outward appearance of the human body, which is all the artistic anatomy that any one attempted to know during the rise and the great age of Greek sculpture is still defective, and his means of expression are still imperfect. For example, in the nude male figure the hips continue to be too narrow for the shoulders, and the abdomen too flat. The facial peculi- arities mentioned in the preceding chapter prominent eyeballs, cheeks, and chin, and smiling mouth are only very gradually modified. As from the first, the upper eyelid does not overlap the lower eyelid at the outer corner, as truth, or rather appearance, requires ; and in relief-sculpture the eye of a face in profile is rendered as in front view. The texture and arrange- ment of hair are expressed in various ways, but always with a marked love of symmetry and formalism. In the difficult art of representing drapery there is much experimentation and great progress. It seems to have been among the eastern lonians, perhaps at Chios, that 143 144 -^ History of Greek Art. the deep cutting of folds was first practiced, and from Ionia this method of treatment spread to Athens and elsewhere. When drapery is used, there is a manifest desire on the sculptor's part to reveal what he can, more, in fact, than in reality could appear, of the form underneath. The garments fall in formal folds, some- times of great elaboration. They look as if they were intended to represent garments of irregular cut, care- fully starched and ironed. But one must be cautious about drawing inferences from an imperfect artistic manner as to the actual fashions of the day. But whatever shortcomings in technical perfection may be laid to their charge, the works of this period are full of the indefinable fascination of promise. They are marked, moreover, by a simplicity and sincerity of purpose, an absence of all ostentation, a conscientious and loving devotion on the part of those who made them. And in many of them we are touched by great refinement and tenderness of feeling, and a peculiarly Greek grace of line. To illustrate these remarks we may turn first to Lycia, in southwestern Asia Minor. The so-called ' ' Harpy ' ' tomb was a huge, four-sided pillar of stone, in the upper part of which a square burial-chamber was hollowed out. Marble bas-reliefs adorned the exterior of this chamber. The best of the four slabs is seen in Fig. 87.* At the right is a seated female figure, divin- ity or deceased woman, who holds in her right hand a pomegranate flower and in her left a pomegranate fruit. To her approach three women, the first raising the lower part of her chiton with her right hand and draw- ing forward her outer garment with her left, the second bringing a fruit and a flower, the third holding an egg * Our illustration is not quite complete on the right. 'The Archaic Period of Greek Sculpture. 145 in her right hand and raising her chiton with her left. Then comes the opening into the burial-chamber, sur- mounted by a diminutive cow suckling her calf. At the left is another seated female figure, holding a bowl for libation. The exact significance of this scene is un- known, and we may limit our attention to its artistic qualities. We have here our first opportunity of observing the principle of isocephaly in Greek relief- sculpture ; i. e. , the convention whereby the heads of FIG. 87. RELIEF FROM THE " HARPY" TOMB. London, British Museum. figures in an extended composition are ranged on nearly the same level, no matter whether the figures are seated, standing, mounted on horseback, or placed in any other position. The main purpose of this conven- tion doubtless was to avoid the unpleasing blank spaces which would result if the figures were all of the same proportions. In the present instance there may be the further desire to suggest by the greater size of the seated figures their greater dignity as goddesses or divinized human beings. Note, again, how, in the case of each standing woman, the garments adhere to the body behind. The sculptor here sacrifices truth for the sake of showing the outline of the figure. Finally, 146 A History of Greek Art. FIG. 88. TION. GRAVE-MONUMENT OF ARIS- Athens, National Museum. remark the daintiness with which the hands are used, particularly in the case of the seated figure on the right. The date of this work may be put not much later than the middle of the sixth cen- tury, and the style is that of the Ionian school. Under the tyrant Pisis- tratus and his sons Athens attained to an importance in the world of art which it had not enjoyed before. A fine Attic work, which we may probably attribute to the time of Pisistratus, is the grave-monument of Aristion (Fig. 88). The material is Pentelic mar- ble. The form of the monument, a tall, narrow, slightly tapering slab or stl, is the usual one in Attica in this period. The man represented in low relief is, of course, Aris- tion himself. He had probably fallen in battle, and so is put before us armed. Over a short chiton he wears a leather cuirass with a double The Archaic Period of Greek Sculpture. 147 row of flaps below ; on his head is a small helmet, which leaves his face entirely exposed ; on his legs are greaves ; and in his left hand he holds a spear. There is some constraint in the position of the left arm and hand, due to the limitations of space. In general, the anatomy, so far as exhibited, is creditable, though fault might be found with the shape of the thighs. The hair, much shorter than is usual in the archaic period, is arranged in careful curls. The beard, trimmed to a point in front, is rendered by parallel grooves. The chiton, where it shows from under the cuirass, is arranged in symmetrical plaits. There are considerable traces of color on the relief, as well as on the back- ground. Some of these may be seen in our illustration on the cuirass. Our knowledge of early Attic sculpture has been im- mensely increased by the thorough exploration of the summit of the Athenian Acropolis in 1885-90. In regard to these important excavations it must be re- membered that in 480 and again in 479 the Acropolis was occupied by Persians belonging to Xerxes' invad- ing army, who reduced the buildings and sculptures on that site to a heap of fire-blackened ruins. This de"bris was used by the Athenians in the generation immediately following toward raising the general level of the summit of the Acropolis. All this material, after having been buried for some twenty-three and a half centuries, has now been recovered. In the light of the newly found remains, which include numerous inscribed pedestals, it is seen that under the rule of Pisistratus and his sons Athens attracted to itself talented sculptors from other Greek communities, notably from Chios and Ionia generally. It is to Ionian sculptors and to Athen- ian sculptors brought under Ionian influences that 148 A History of Greek Art. we must attribute almost all those standing female figures which form the chief part of the new treas- ures of the Acropo- lis Museum. The figures of this type stand with the left foot, as a rule, a little advanced, the body and head facing directly for- ward with primi- tive stiffness. But the arms no longer hang straight at the sides, one of them, regularly the right, being extended from the elbow, while the other holds up the voluminous drap- ery. Many of the statues retain co- pious traces of color on hair, eye- brows, eyes, drap- eries, and ornaments ; in no case does the flesh give any evidence of having been painted ((/. page 119). Fig. 89 is taken from an illustration which gives the color as it FIG. 89. ARCHAIC FEMALE FIGURE. Athens, Acropolis Museum. (From the Antike Denkmdler, I., Pi. XIX.) The Archaic Period of Greek Sculpture. 149 was when the statue was first found, before it had suf- fered from exposure. Fig. 90 is, not in itself one of the most pleasing of the series, but it has a special interest, not merely on account of its exceptionally large size it is over six and a half feet high but because we probably know the name and some- thing more of its sculptor. If, as seems altogether likely, the statue be- longs upon the in- scribed pedestal upon which it is placed in the illus- tration, then we have before us an original work of that Antenor who was commissioned by the Athenian peo- ple, soon after the expulsion of the tyrant Hippias and his family in 510, to make a group in bronze of Har- modius and Aristogiton ((/". pages 160-4). This statue might, of course, be one of his earlier productions. FIG, 90. STATUE BY ANTENOR (?). Athens, Acropolis Museum. (From the Antike Denkmdler, I., PI. LI 1 1.) A History of Greek Art. At first sight these figures strike many untrained ob- servers as simply grotesque. Some of them are indeed odd; Fig. 91 reproduces one which is especially so. But they soon become absorb- ingly interesting and then delightful. The strange- looking, puzzling gar- ments,* which cling to the figure behind and fall in formal folds in front, the elaborately, often impossi- bly, arranged hair, the gracious countenances, a certain quaintness and re- finement and unconscious- ness of self these things exercise over us an endless fascination. Who are these mysterious beings ? We do not know. There are those who would see in them, or in some of them, representations of Athena, who was not only a martial goddess, but also FIG. ^-ARCHAIC FEMALE FIGURE, patroness of spinning and Athens, Acropolis Museum. weaving and all cunning handiwork. To others, including the writer, they seem, in their manifold variety, to be daughters of Athens. * Fig. 91 wears only one garment, the Ionic chiton, a long linen shift, girded at the waist and pulled up so as to fall over and conceal the girdle. Figs. 89, 9i 9 2 . 93 wear over this a second garment, which goes over the right shoulder and under the left. This over-garment reaches to the feet, so as to conceal the lower portion of the chiton. At the top it is folded over, or perhaps rather another piece of cloth is sewed on. This over-fold, if it may be so called, ap- pears as if cut with two or more long points below. The Archaic Period of Greek Sculpture. 151 But, if so, what especial claim these women had to be set up in effigy upon Athena's holy hill is an unsolved riddle. Before parting from their company we must not fail to look at two fragmentary figures (Figs. 94, 95), the most advanced in style of the whole series and doubtless ex- ecuted shortly be- fore 480. In the former, presumably the earlier of the two, the marvelous arrangement of the hair over the fore- head survives and the eyeballs still protrude unpleas- antly. But the mouth has lost the conventional smile and the modeling of the face is of great beauty. In the other, alone of the series, the hair pre- sents a fairly natural appearance, the eyeballs lie at their proper depth, and the beautiful curve of the neck is not masked by the locks that fall upon the breasts. In this head, too, the mouth actually droops at the corners, giving a perhaps unintended look of seriousness to the face. The ear, though set rather high, is exquisitely shaped. FIG. 92. UPPER PART OF ARCHAIC FEMALE FIGURE. Athens, Acropolis Museum. 152 A History of Greek Art. Still more lovely than this lady is the youth's head shown in Fig. 96. Fate has robbed us of the body to which it belonged, but the head itself is in an excellent state of preservation. The face is one of singular purity and sweetness. The hair, once of a golden tint, is long behind and is gathered into two braids, which start from just behind the ears, cross one another, and are fas- tened together in front ; the short front hair is combed forward and conceals the ends of the braids ; and there is a mysterious puff in front of each ear. In the whole work, so far at least as ap- pears in a profile view, there is nothing to mar our pleas- ure. The sculptor's hand has responded cunningly to his beautiful thought. It is a pity not to be able to illustrate another group of Attic sculptures of the late archaic period, the most recent addition to our store. The metopes of the FIG. 93. ARCHAIC FEMALE FIGURE. Treasury of the Athenians at Delphi, discovered during the excavations now in progress, are. of extraordinary The Archaic Period of Greek Sculpture. 153 interest and importance ; but only two or three of them have yet been published, and these in a form not suited for reproduction. The same is the case with another of the recent finds at Delphi, the sculp- tured frieze of the Treasury of the Cnidians, already famous among" pro- fessional students and destined to be known and admired by a wider public. Here, however, it is possible to submit a single fragment, which was found years ago (Fig. 97). It represents a four- horse chariot ap- proaching an altar. The newly found pieces of this frieze have abundant remains of color. The work probably belongs in the last quarter of the sixth century. The pediment-figures from ^gina, the chief treasure of the Munich collection of ancient sculpture, were found in 1811 by a party of scientific explorers and were restored in Italy under the superintendence of the Danish sculptor, Thorwaldsen. Until lately these ^ginetan figures were our only important group of late archaic Greek sculptures ; and, though that is no longer the case, they still retain, and will always retain, an especial interest and significance. They once filled the FIG. 94. FRAGMENT OF ARCHAIC FEMALE FIGURE. Athens, Acropolis Museum. 154 A History of Greek Art. pediments of a Doric temple of Aphaia, of which con- siderable remains are still standing. There is no trust- worthy external clue to the date of the building, and we are therefore obliged to depend for that on the style of the architecture and sculpture, especially the latter. In the dearth of accurately dated monuments which might serve as standards o f c om par ison, great difference of opinion on this point has prevailed. But we are now some- w h a t better off, thanks to recent discoveries at Ath- ens and Delphi, and we shall probably not go far wrong in assigning the temple with its sculptures to about 480 B. C. Fig. 52 illustrates, though somewhat incorrectly, the composition of the western pediment. The subject was a combat, in the pres- ence of Athena, be- tween Greeks and Asiatics, probably on the plain of Troy. A close parallelism existed be- tween the two halves of the pediment, each figure, except the goddess and the fallen warrior at her feet, correspond- FIG. 95. FRAGMENT OF ARCHAIC FEMALE FIGURE. Athens, Acropolis Museum. The Archaic Period of Greek Sculpture. 155 ing to a similar figure on the opposite side. Athena, protectress of the Greeks, stands in the center (Fig. 98). She wears two garments, of which the outer one (the only one seen in the illustration) is a marvel of formal- ism. Her aegis cov- ers her breasts and hangs far down be- hind ; the points of its scalloped edge once bristled with serpents' heads, and there was a Gor- gon's head in the middle of the front. She has upon her head a helmet with lofty crest, and car- ries shield and lance. The men, with the exception of the two archers, are naked, and their helmets, which are of a form intended to cover the face, are pushed back. Of course, men did not actually go into battle in this fashion ; but the sculptor did not care for realism, and he did care for the exhibition of the body. He be- longed to a school which had made an especially careful study of anatomy, and his work shows a great improve- ment in this respect over anything we have yet had the opportunity to consider. Still, the men are decidedly lean in appearance and their angular attitudes are a FIG. 96. HEAD OF A YOUTH. Athens, Acropolis Museum. 156 A History of Greek Art. little suggestive of prepared skeletons. They have oblique and prominent eyes, and, whether fighting or FIG. 97. FRAGMENT OF FRIEZE FROM THE TREASURY OF THE CNIDIANS. Delphi. dying, they wear upon their faces the same conven- tional smile. The group in the eastern pediment corresponds closely in subject and composition to that in the western, but is FIG. 98. FIGURES FROM THE WESTERN PEDIMENT OF THE ..EGINETAN TEMPLE. Munich. of a distinctly more advanced style. Only five figures of this group were sufficiently preserved to be restored. The Archaic Period of Greek Sculpture. 157 Of these perhaps the most admirable is the dying warrior from the southern corner of the pediment (Fig. 99), in which the only considerable modern part is the right leg, from the middle of the thigh. The superiority of this and its companion figures to those of the western pedi- ment lies, as the Munich catalogue points out, in the juster proportions of body, arms, and legs, the greater fulness of the muscles, the more careful attention to the veins and to the qualities of the skin, the more natural position of eyes and mouth. This dying man does not FIG. 99. DYING WARRIOR FROM THE EASTERN PEDIMENT OF THE TEMPLE. Munich. smile meaninglessly. His lips are parted, and there is a suggestion of death-agony on his countenance. In both pediments the figures are carefully finished all round ; there is no neglect, or none worth mentioning, of those parts which were destined to be invisible so long as the figures were in position. The Strangford "Apollo" (Fig. 100) is of uncertain provenience, but is nearly related in style to the marbles of ^Egina. This statue, by the position of body, legs, and head, belongs to the series of "Apollo" figures 158 A History of Greek Art. FIG. loo. STRANGFORD "APOLLO.' British Museum. London, discussed above (pages 129-32) ; but the arms were no longer attached to the sides, and were probably bent at the elbows. The most obvious traces of a lingering ar- chaism, besides the rigidity of the atti- tude, are the nar- rowness of the hips and the formal ar- rangement of the hair, with its double row of snail-shell curls. The statue has been spoken of by a high authority* as showing only ' ' a meager and painful rendering of na- ture. ' ' That is one way of looking at it. But there is an- other way, which has been finely ex- pressed by Pater, in an essay on "The Marbles of : "As art which has passed its prime has sometimes the charm of * Newton, " Essays on Art and Archaeology," page 81. The Archaic Period of Greek Sculpture. 159 an absolute refinement in taste and workmanship, so immature art also, as we now see, has its own attractive- ness in the naivete, the freshness of spirit, which finds power and interest in simple motives of feeling, and in the freshness of hand, which has a sense of enjoyment in mechanical processes still performed unmechanically, in the spending of care and intelligence on every touch. The workman is at work in dry earnestness, with a sort of hard strength of detail, a scrupulousness verging on stiffness, like that of an early Flemish painter ; he communicates to us his still youthful sense of pleasure in the experience of the first rudimentary difficulties of his art overcome."* * Pater, " Greek Studies," page 285. CHAPTER VII. THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD OF GREEK SCULPTURE. 480-450 B. C. THE term " Transitional period " is rather meaning- less in itself, but has acquired considerable currency as denoting that stage in the history of Greek art in which the last steps were taken toward perfect freedom of style. It is convenient to reckon this period as extend- ing from the year of the Persian invasion of Greece under Xerxes to the middle of the century. In the artistic as in the political history of this generation Athens held a position of commanding importance, while Sparta, the political rival of Athens, was as barren of art as of literature. The other principal artistic center was Argos, whose school of sculpture had been and was destined long to be widely influential. As for other local schools, the question of their centers and mutual relations is too perplexing and uncertain to be here discussed. In the two preceding chapters we studied only origi- nal works, but from this time on we shall have to pay a good deal of attention to copies (cf. pages 114-16). We begin with two statues in Naples (Fig. 101). The story of this group for the two statues were designed as a group is interesting. The two friends, Harmodius and Aristogiton, who in 514 had formed a conspiracy to rid Athens of her tyrants, but who had succeeded only in killing one of them, came to be regarded after the expulsion of the remaining tyrant and his family in 510 The Transitional Period of Greek Sculpture. 161 as the liberators of the city. Their statues in bronze, the work of Antenor, were set up on a terrace above FIG. loi. HARMODIUS AND ARISTOGITON. Naples. the market-place (cf. pages 124, 149). In 480 this group was carried off to Persia by Xerxes and there it 1 62 A History of Greek Art. remained for a hundred and fifty years or more, when it was restored to Athens by Alexander the Great or one of his successors. Athens, however, had as promptly as possible repaired her loss. Critius and Nesiotes, two sculptors who worked habitually in partnership, were commissioned to make a second group, and this was set up in 477-6 on the same terrace where the first had been. After the restoration of Antenor's statues toward the end of the fourth century the two groups stood side by side. It was argued by a German archaeologist more than a generation ago that the two marble statues shown in Fig. 101 are copied from one of these bronze groups, and this identification has been all but universally accepted. The proof may be stated briefly, as follows : First, several Athenian objects of various dates, from the fifth century B. C. onward, bear a design to which the Naples statues clearly correspond. One of these is a relief on a marble throne, formerly in Athens. Our illustration of this (Fig. 102) is taken from a "squeeze," or wet paper impression. This must, then, have been an important group in Athens. Secondly, the style of the Naples statues points to a bronze original of the early fifth century. Thirdly, the attitudes of the figures are suitable for Harmodius and Aristogiton, and we do not know of any other group of that period for which they are suitable. This proof, though not quite as complete as we should like, is as good as we generally get in these matters. The only question that remains in serious doubt is whether our copies go back to the work of Antenor or to that of Critius and Nesiotes. Opinions have been much divided on this point, but the prevail- ing tendency now is to connect them with the later artists. That is the view here adopted. The Transitional Period of Greek Sculpture. 163 In studying the two statues it is important to recognize the work of the modern "restorer." The figure of FIG. 102. RELIEF ON A MARBLE THRONE. Broom Hall, near Dunfermline, Scotland. (From The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. V., PI. XLVIII.) Aristogiton (the one on your left as you face the group) having been found in a headless condition, the restorer provided it with a head, which is antique, to be sure, 1 64 A History of Greek Art. but which is outrageously out of keeping, being of the style of a century later. The chief modern portions are the left hand of Arfstogiton and the arms, right leg, and lower part of the left leg of Harmodius. As may be learned from the small copies, Aristogiton should be bearded, and the right arm of Harmodius should be in the act of being raised to bring down a stroke of the sword upon his antagonist. We have, then, to correct in imagination the restorer's misdoings, and also to omit the tree-trunk supports, which the bronze originals did not need. Further, the two figures should probably be advancing in the same direction, instead of in con- verging lines. When these changes are made, the group cannot fail to command our admiration. It would be a mistake to fix our attention exclusively on the head of Harmodius. Seen in front view, the face, with its low forehead and heavy chin, looks dull, if not ignoble. But the bodies ! In complete disregard of historic truth, the two men are represented in a state of ideal nudity, like the ^ginetan figures. The anatomy is carefully studied, the attitudes lifelike and vigorous. Finally, the composition is fairly successful. This is the earliest example preserved to us of a group of sculpture other than a pediment-group. The interlocking of the figures is not yet so close as it was destined to be in many a more advanced piece of Greek statuary. But already the figures are not merely juxtaposed ; they share in a common action, and each is needed to complete the other. Of about the same date, it would seem, or not much later, must have been a lost bronze statue, whose fame is attested by the existence of several marble copies. The best of these was found in 1862, in the course of exca- vating the great theater on the southern slope of the The Transitional Period of Greek Sculpture. 165 Athenian Acropolis (Fig. 103). The naming of this figure is doubtful. It has been commonly taken for Apollo, while another view sees in it a pugilist. Re- cently the suggestion has been thrown out that it is Heracles. Be that as it may, the figure is a fine example of youthful strength and beauty. In pose it shows a decided advance upon the Strangford "Apollo" (Fig. 100). The left leg is still slightly advanced, and both feet were planted flat on the ground ; but more than half the weight of the body is thrown upon the right leg, with the result of giving a slight curve to the trunk, and the head is turned to one side. The upper part of the body is very powerful, the shoulders broad and held well back, the chest promi- nently developed. The face, in spite of its injuries, is one of singular refinement and sweetness. The long hair is arranged in two braids, as in Fig. 96, the only difference FlG . I03 .-" APOLLO ON THE OMPHA being that here the braids pass over instead of under the fringe of front hair. The rendering of the hair is in a freer style than in the case just cited, but of this difference a part may be chargeable to the copyist. Altogether we see here the stamp of an 1 66 A History of Greek Art. artistic manner very different from that of Critius and Nesiotes. Possibly, as some have conjectured, it is the manner of Calamis, an Attic sculptor of this period, whose eminence at any rate entitles him to a passing mention. But even the Attic origin of this statue is in dispute. We now reach a name of commanding importance, 'and one with which we are fortunately able to associate some definite ideas. It is the name of Myron of Athens, who ranks among the six most illustrious sculptors of Greece. It is worth remarking, as an illustration of the scantiness of our knowledge regarding the lives of Greek artists, that Myron's name is not so much as mentioned in extant literature before the third century B. C. Except for a precise, but certainly false, notice in Pliny, who represents him as flourishing in 420-416, our literary sources yield only vague indica- tions as to his date. These indications, such as they are, point to the "Transitional period." This inference is strengthened by the recent discovery on the Athenian Acropolis of a pair of pedestals inscribed with the name of Myron's son and probably datable about 446. Finally, the argument is clinched by the style of Myron's most certainly identifiable work. Pliny makes Myron the pupil of an influential Argive master, Ageladas, who belongs in the late archaic period. Whether or not such a relation actually ex- isted, the statement is useful as a reminder of the proba- bility that Argos and Athens were artistically in touch with one another. Beyond this, we get no direct testimony as to the circumstances of Myron's life. We can only infer that hi genius was widely recognized in his lifetime, seeing that commissions came to him, not from Athens only, but also from other cities of Greece The Transitional Period of Greek Sculpture. 167 proper, as well as from distant Samos and Ephesus. His chief material was bronze, and colossal figures of gold and ivory are also ascribed to him. So far as we know, he did not work in marble at all. His range of subjects included divinities, heroes, men, and ani- mals. Of no work of his do we hear so often or in terms of such high praise as of a certain figure of a cow, which stood on or near the Athenian Acropolis. A large number of athlete statues from his hand were to be seen at Olympia, Del- phi, and perhaps elsewhere, and this side of his activity was cer- tainly an impor- tant one. Per- haps it is a mere accident that we hear less of his statues of divinities and heroes. The starting point in any study of Myron must be his Discobolus (Discus-thrower). Fig. 104 reproduces the best copy. This statue was found in Rome in 1781, FIG. 104. COPY OF THE DISCOBOLUS OF MYRON. Rome, Lancellotti Palace. (From Collignon, "Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque," Vol. I., PI. XI.) 1 68 A History of Greek Art. and is in an unusually good state of preservation. The head has never been broken from the body ; the right arm has been broken off, but is substantially antique ; and the only considerable restoration is the right leg from the knee to the ankle. The two other most important copies were found together in 1791 on the site of Hadrian's villa at Tibur (Tivoli). One of these is now in the British Museum, the other in the Vatican ; neither has its original head. A fourth copy of the body, a good deal disguised by "restoration," exists in the Museum of the Capitol in Rome. There are also other copies of the head besides the one on the Lancel- lotti statue. The proof that these statues and parts of statues were copied from Myron's Discobolus depends principally upon a passage in Lucian (about 160 A. D. ).* He gives a circumstantial description of the attitude of that work, or rather of a copy of it, and his description agrees point for point with the statues in question. This agree- ment is the more decisive because the attitude is a very remarkable one, no other known figure showing any- thing in the least resembling it. Moreover, the style of the Lancellotti statue points to a bronze original of the " Transitional period," to which on historical grounds Myron is assigned. Myron's statue represented a young Greek who had been victorious in the pentathlon, or group of five con- tests (running, leaping, wrestling, throwing the spear, and hurling the discus), but we have no clue as to where in the Greek world it was set up. The attitude of the figure seems a strange one at first sight, but other ancient representations, as well as modern experi- ments, leave little room for doubt that the sculptor has * Philopseudes, g 18. The Transitional Period of Greek Sculpture. 169 truthfully caught one of the rapidly changing positions which the exercise involved. Having passed the discus from his left hand to his right, the athlete has swung the missile as far back as possible. In the next instant he will hurl it forward, at the same time, of course, advanc- ing his left foot and recovering his erect position. Thus Myron has preferred to the comparatively easy task of representing the athlete at rest, bearing some symbol of victory, the far more'difficult problem of exhibiting him in action. It would seem that he delighted in the expression of movement. So his Ladas, known to us only from two epigrams in the Anthology, represented a runner panting toward the goal ; and others of his athlete statues may have been similarly conceived. His temple-images, on the other hand, must have been as composed in attitude as the Discobolus is energetic. The face of the Discobolus is rather typical than indi- vidual. If this is not immediately obvious to the reader, the comparison of a closely allied head may make it clear. Of the numerous works which have been brought into relation with Myron by reason of their likeness to the Discobolus, none is so unmistakable as a fine bust in Florence (Fig. 105). The general form of the head, the rendering of the hair, the anatomy of the forehead, the form of the nose and the angle it makes with the forehead these and other features noted by Professor Furtwangler are alike in the Discobolus and the Riccardi head. These detailed resemblances cannot be verified without the help of casts or at least of good photographs taken from different points of view ; -but the general impression of likeness will be felt convincing, even without analysis. Now these two works represent different persons, the Riccardi head being probably copied from the statue of some ideal hero. And the A History of Greek Art. point to be especially illustrated is that in the Discobolus we have not a realistic portrait, but a generalized type. This is not the same as to say that the face bore no recognizable resemblance to the young man whom the statue commemorated. Portraiture admits of many degrees, from literal fidelity to an ideal- ization in which the identity of the sub- ject is all but lost. All that is meant is that the Discobolus belongs somewhere near the latter end of the scale. In this absence of indi- vidualization we have a trait, not of Myron alone, but of Greek sculpture generally in its rise and in the earlier stages of its perfec- tion (jcf. page 126). Another work of Myron has been plausibly recognized in a statue of a satyr in the Lateran Museum (Fig. 106). The evidence for this is too complex to be stated here. If the identification is correct, the Lateran statue is copied from the figure of Marsyas in a bronze group of Athena and Marsyas which stood on the Athenian Acropolis. The goddess was represented as having just flung down in disdain a pair of flutes ; the satyr, advancing on tiptoe, hesitates between cupidity and the fear of Athena's displeasure. Marsyas has a FlG. 105. BUST, PROBABLY AFTER MYRON. Florence, Riccardi Palace. (From Furtwangler, " Meisterwerke," PI. XVII.) The Transitional Period of Greek Sculpture. 171 lean and sinewy figure, coarse stiff hair and beard, a wrinkled forehead, a broad flat nose which makes a marked angle with the forehead, pointed ears (modern, but guaranteed by another copy of the head), and a short tail sprouting from the small of the back. The arms, which were missing, have been incorrectly restored with casta- nets. The right should be held up, the left down, in a gesture of astonish- ment. In this work we see again Myron's skill in suggesting movement. We get a lively impression of an advance suddenly checked and changed to a recoil. Thus far in this chapter we have been dealing with copies. Our stock of original works of this period, however, is not small ; it consists, as usual, largely of architec- tural sculpture. Fig. 107 shows four meto- pes from a temple at Selinus. They repre- sent (beginning at the left) Heracles in combat with an Amazon, Hera unveiling herself before Zeus, Actaeon torn by his dogs in the presence of Artemis, and Athena FIG. 106. SATYR, PROBABLY AFTER MYRON. Rome, Lateran Museum. 172 A History of Greek Art. overcoming the giant Enceladus. These reliefs would repay the most careful study, but the sculptures of an- other temple have still stronger claims to attention. Olympia was one of the two most important religious centers of the Greek world, the other being Delphi. Olympia was sacred to Zeus, and the great Doric temple of Zeus was thus the chief among the group of FIG. 107. PORTION OF DORIC FRIEZE WITH SCULPTURED METOPES, FROM SELINUS. Palermo. religious buildings there assembled. The erection of this temple probably falls in the years just preceding and following 460 B. C. A slight exploration carried on by the French in 1829 and the thorough excavation of the site by the Germans in 1875-81 brought to light extensive remains of its sculptured decoration. This consisted of two pediment-groups and twelve sculptured metopes, besides the acroteria. In the eastern pedi- ment the subject is the preparation for the chariot- race of Pelops and CEnomaus. The legend ran that LEnomaus, king of Pisa in Elis, refused the hand of his daughter save to one who should beat him in a chariot- race. Suitor after suitor tried and failed, till at last Pelops, a young prince from over sea, succeeded. In the pediment-group Zeus, as arbiter of the impending contest, occupies the center. On one side of him stand Pelops and his destined bride, on the other CEnomaus The Transitional Period of Greek Sculpture. 173 and his wife, Sterope (Fig. 108). The chariots, with attendants and other more or less interested persons follow (Fig. 109). The moment chosen by the sculp- FIG. 108. CENOMAUS AND STEROPE. Olytnpia. tor is one of expectancy rather than action, and the various figures are in consequence simply juxtaposed, not interlocked. Far different is the scene presented by the western pediment. The subject here is the 174 A History of Greek Art. combat between Lapiths and Centaurs, one of the favorite themes of Greek sculpture, as of Greek paint- ing. The Centaurs, brutal creatures, partly human, partly equine, were fabled to have lived in Thessaly. There too was the home of the Lapiths, who were FIG. 109. ELDERLY MAN. Olympia. Greeks. At the wedding of Pirithoiis, king of the Lapiths, the Centaurs, who had been bidden as guests, became inflamed with wine and began to lay hands on the women. Hence a general mdlee, in which the Greeks were victorious. The sculptor has placed the god Apollo in the center (Fig. no), undisturbed amid The Transitional Period of Greek Sculpture. 175 the wild tumult ; his presence alone assures us what the issue is to be. The struggling groups (Figs, in, 112) extend nearly to the corners, which are occupied each by two reclining fe- male figures, specta- tors of the scene. In each pediment the composition is symmetrical, every figure having its corresponding fig- ure on the opposite side. Yet the law of symmetry is in- terpreted much more freely than in the ^gina p e d i - ments of a gener- FIG. no. HEAD OF APOLLO. Olympia. a 1 1 o n earlier ; the corresponding figures often differ from one another a good deal in attitude, and in one instance even in sex. Our illustrations, which give a few representative specimens of these sculptures, suggest some comments. To begin with, the workmanship here displayed is rapid and far from faultless. Unlike the ^Eginetan pediment- figures and those of the Parthenon, these figures are left rough at the back. Moreover, even in the visible por- tions there are surprising evidences of carelessness, as in the portentously long left thigh of the Lapith in Fig. 112. It is, again, evidence of rapid, though not exactly of faulty, execution, that the hair is in a good many cases only blocked out, the form of the mass being given, but its texture not indicated (e. g.. Fig. in). 176 A History of Greek Art, In the pose of the standing figures (e. g., Fig. 108), with the weight borne about equally by both legs, we see a modified survival of the usual archaic attitude. A lin- FIG. in. LAPITH BRIDE AND CENTAUR. Olympia. gering archaism may be seen in other features too ; very plainly, for example, in the arrangement of Apollo's hair (Fig. no). The garments represent a thick woolen stuff, whose folds show very little pliancy. The The Transitional Period of Greek Sculpture. 177 drapery of Sterope (Fig. 108) should be especially noted, as it is a characteristic example for this period of a type which has a long history. She wears the Doric FIG. 112. LAPITH AND CENTAUR. Olympia. chiton, a sleeveless woolen garment girded and pulled over the girdle and doubled over from the top. The formal, starched-looking folds of the archaic period have disappeared. The cloth lies pretty flat over the chest 178 A History of Greek Art. and waist ; there is a rather arbitrary little fold at the neck. Below the girdle the drapery is divided verti- cally into two parts ; on the one side it falls in straight folds to the ankle, on the other it is drawn smooth over the bent knee. Another interesting fact about these sculptures is a certain tendency toward realism. The figures and faces and attitudes of the Greeks, not to speak of the Cen- taurs, are not all entirely beautiful and noble. This is illustrated by Fig. 109, a bald-headed man, rather fat. Here is realism of a very mild type, to be sure, in com- parison with what we are accustomed to nowadays ; but the old men of the Parthenon frieze bear no disfiguring marks of age. Again, in the face of the young Lapith whose arm is being bitten by a Centaur (Fig. 112), there is a marked attempt to express physical pain ; the features are more distorted than in any other fifth century sculpture, except representations of Centaurs or other inferior creatures. In the other heads of imperiled men and women in this pediment, e. g. , in that of the bride (Fig. in), the ideal calm of the features is overspread with only a faint shadow of distress. Lest what has been said should suggest that the sculptors of the Olympia pediment-figures were in- different to beauty, attention may be drawn again to the superb head of the Lapith bride. Apollo, too (Fig. no), though not that radiant god whom a later age conceived and bodied forth, has an austere beauty which only a dull eye can fail to appreciate. The twelve sculptured metopes of the temple do not belong to the exterior frieze, whose metopes were plain, but to a second frieze, placed above the columns and antae of pronaos and opisthodomos. Their sub- jects are the twelve labors of Heracles, beginning with The Transitional Period of Greek Sculpture. 179 the slaying of the Nemean lion and ending with the cleansing of the Augean stables. The one selected for illustration is one of the two or three best preserved members of the series (Fig. 113). Its subject is the FIG. 113. ATLAS METOPE. Olympia. winning of the golden apples which grew in the garden of the Hesperides, near the ' spot where Atlas stood, evermore supporting on his shoulders the weight of the heavens. Heracles prevailed upon Atlas to go and i8o A History of Greek Art. fetch the coveted treasure, himself meanwhile assuming the burden. The moment chosen by the sculptor is that of the return of Atlas with the apples. In the middle stands Heracles, with a cushion, folded double, upon his shoulders, the sphere of the heavens being barely suggested at the top of the relief. Behind him is his companion and protectress, Athena, once recog- nizable by a lance in her right hand.* With her left hand she seeks to ease a little the hero's heavy load. Before him stands Atlas, holding out the apples in both hands. The main lines of the composition are some- what monotonous, but this is a consequence of the subject, not of any incapacity of the artist, as the other metopes testify. The figure of Athena should be com- pared with that of Sterope in the eastern pediment. There is a substantial resem- blance in the drapery, even to the arbitrary little fold in the neck ; but the garment here is entirely open on the right side, after the fashion followed by Spartan maid- ens, whereas there it is sewed together from the waist down ; there is here no gir- dle ; and the broad, flat FIG. H4.-HEAD OF ATHENA (?), expanse of cloth in front FROM LION METOPE, oiympia. observable there is here nar- rowed by two folds falling from the breasts. Fig. 114 is added as a last example of the severe beauty to be found in these sculptures. It will be ob- * Such at least seems to be the view adopted in the latest official publica- tion on the subject : "Oiympia ; Die Bildwerke in Stein und Thon," PI. LXV. The Transitional Period of Greek Sculpture. 181 served that the hair of this head is not worked out in de- tail, except at the front. This sum- mary treatment of the hair is, in fact, more general in the metopes than in the pediment- figures. The up- per eyelid does not yet overlap the under eyelid at the outer corner (jcf. Fig. no). The two pedi- ment-groups and the metopes of this temple show such close resemblances of style among themselves that they must all be regarded as prod- ucts of a single school of sculp- ture, if not as de- signed by a single man. Pausanias says nothing of the authorship of the metopes ; but he tells us that the FIG. 115. THE GIUSTINIANI " VESTA." Rome, Torlonia Palace. (From Baumeister, " Denkmaler," Fig. 746.) 182 A History of Greek Art. sculptures of the eastern pediment were the work of Pseonius of Mende, an indisputable statue by whom is known ((/". page 213), and those of the western by Alca- menes, who appears elsewhere in literary tradition as a pupil of Phidias. On various grounds it seems almost certain that Pausanias was misinformed on this point. Thus we are left without trustworthy testimony as to the affiliations of the artist or artists to whom the sculp- tured decoration of this temple was intrusted. The so-called Hestia (Vesta) which formerly belonged to the Giustiniani family (Fig. 115), has of late years been in- accessible even to professional students. It must be one of the very best preserved of ancient statues in marble, as it is not reported to have anything modern about it except the index finger of the left hand. This hand originally held a scep- ter. The statue rep- resents some goddess, it is uncertain what FIG. 116. THE "SPINARIO." one. In view of the Rome, Palace of the Conservator!. 1M , j likeness in the drap- ery to some of the Olympia figures, no one can doubt that this is a product of the same period. In regard to the bronze statue shown in Fig. 1 16 there is more room for doubt, but the weight of opinion is in The Transitional Period of Greek Sculpture. 183 favor of placing it here. It is confidently claimed by a high authority that this is an original Greek bronze. There exist also fragmentary copies of the same in marble and free imitations in marble and in bronze. The statue represents a boy of perhaps twelve, absorbed in pulling a thorn from his foot. We do not know the original purpose of the work ; perhaps it commemorated a victory won in a foot-race of boys. The left leg of the figure is held in a position which gives a somewhat un- graceful outline ; Praxiteles would not have placed it so. But how delightful is the picture of childish innocence and self-forgetfulness ! This statue might be regarded as an epitome of the artistic spirit and capacity of the age its simplicity and purity and freshness of feeling, its not quite complete emancipation from the formalism of an earlier day. CHAPTER VIII. THE GREAT AGE OF GREEK SCULPTURE. FIRST PERIOD : 450-400 B. C. THE Age of Pericles, which, if we reckon from the first entrance of Pericles into politics, extended from about 466 to 429, has become proverbial as a period of extraordinary artistic and literary splendor. The real ascendancy of Pericles began in 447, and the achieve- ments most properly associated with his name belong to the succeeding fifteen years. Athens at this time possessed ample material resources, derived in great measure from the tribute of subject allies ; and wealth was freely spent upon noble monuments of art. The city was filled with artists of high and low degree. Above them all in genius towered Phidias, and to him, if we may believe the testimony of Plutarch,* a general superintendence of all the artistic undertakings of the state was intrusted by Pericles. Great as was the fame of Phidias in after ages, we are left in almost complete ignorance as to the circum- stances of his life. If he was really the author of cer- tain works ascribed to him, he must have been born about 500 B.C. This would make him as old, perhaps, as Myron. Another view would put his birth between 490 and 485 ; still another, as late as 480. The one un- disputed date in his life is the year 438, when the gold and ivory statue of Athena in the Parthenon was com- pleted. Touching the time and circumstances of his * " Life of Pericles," 13. 184 The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 185 death we have two inconsistent traditions. According to the one, he was brought to trial in Athens im- mediately after the completion of the Athena on the charge of misappropriating some of the ivory with which he had been intrusted, but made his escape to Elis, where, after executing the gold and ivory Zeus for the temple of that god at Olympia, he was put to death for some unspecified reason by the Eleans in 432-1. Ac- cording to the other tradition, he was accused in Athens, apparently not before 432, of stealing some of the gold destined for the Athena, and, when this charge broke down, of having sacrilegiously introduced his 'own and Pericles' s portraits into the relief on Athena's shield ; being cast into prison, he died there of disease, or, as some said, of poison. The most famous works of Phidias were the two chryselephantine statues to which reference has just been made, and two or three other statues of the same ma- terials were ascribed to him. He worked also in bronze and in marble. From a reference in Aristotle's ' ' Ethics ' ' it might seem as if he were best known as a sculptor in marble, but only three statues by him are expressly recorded to have been of marble, against a larger number of bronze. His subjects were chiefly divinities ; we hear of only one or two figures of human beings from his hands. Of the colossal Zeus at Olympia, the most august creation of Greek artistic imagination, we can form only an indistinct idea. The god was seated upon a throne, holding a figure of Victory upon one hand and a scepter in the other. The figure is represented on three Elean coins of the time of Hadrian (117-138 A. D. ), but on too small a scale to help us much. Another coin of the same period gives a fine head of Zeus in profile ( Fig. 1 86 A History of Greek Art, 117),* which is plausibly supposed to preserve some likeness to the head of Phidias' s statue. In regard to the Athena of the Parthenon we are con- siderably better off, for we possess a number of marble statues which, with the aid of Pausanias's de- scription and by comparison with one another, can be proved to be copies of that work. But a warning is nec- essary here. The Athena, like the Zeus, was of colossal size. Its FIG. 117. BRONZE COIN OF ELIS (ENLARGED) height, with the pedestal, was about thirty-eight feet. Now it is not likely that a really exact copy on a small scale could possibly have been made from such a statue, nor, if one had been made, would it have given the effect of the original. With this warning laid well to heart the reader may venture to examine that one among our copies which makes the greatest attempt at exactitude (Fig. 118). It is a statuette, not quite 3^ feet high with the basis, found in Athens in 1880. The goddess stands with her left leg bent a little and pushed to one side. She is dressed in a heavy Doric chiton, open at the side. The girdle, whose ends take the form of snakes' heads, is *A more truthful representation of this coin may be found in Gardner's " Types of Greek Coins," PI. XV., 19. The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 187 worn outside the doubled-over portion of the garment. Above it the folds are carefully adjusted, drawn in sym- metrically from both sides toward the middle ; in the lower part of the figure there is the common vertical division into two parts, owing to the bending of one leg. Over the chiton is the aegis, much less long behind than in earlier art (cf. Fig. 98), fringed with snakes' heads and having a Gorgon' s mask in front. The helmet is an elabo- rate affair with three crests, the central one supported by a sphinx, the others by winged horses ; the hinged cheek-pieces are turned up. At the left of the god- dess is her shield, within which coils a serpent. On her ex- tended right hand stands a Victory. The face of Athena is the most disappointing part of it all, but it is just there that the copyist must have failed FIG. 118. REDUCED COPY OF THE ATHENA OF THE PARTHENON. Athens, National Museum. i88 A History of Greek Art. most completely. Only the eye of faith, or better, the eye trained by much study of allied works, can divine in this poor little figure the majesty which awed the beholder of Phidias' s work. Speculation has been busy in at- tempting to connect other statues that have been preserved to us with the name of Phidias. The most probable case that has yet been made out concerns two closely similar marble figures in Dresden, one of which is shown in Fig. 119. The head of this statue is miss- ing, but its place has been supplied by a cast of a head in Bologna (Fig. 120), which has been proved to be another copy from the same original. This proof, about which there seems to be no room for FIG. 119. ATHENA. Dresden. (From Furtwangler, " Meistenverke," PI. II.) question, is due tO The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 189 Professor Furtwiingler,* who argues further that the statue as thus restored is a faithful copy of the Lemnian Athena of Phidias, a bronze work which stood on the Athenian Acropolis. The proof of this depends upon (i) the resemblance in the standing position and in the drapery of this figure to the Athena of the Parthenon, and (2) the fact that Phidias is known to have made a statue of Athena (thought to be the Lemnian Athena) without a helmet on the head a n ex- ceptional, though not wholly unique, representation in sculpture in the round. If this demon- stration be thought insufficient, there cannot, at all events, be much doubt that we have here the copy of an original of about the middle of the fifth century. The style is severely simple, as we ought to expect of a religious work of that period. The virginal face, conceived and wrought with ineffable refinement, is as far removed from sensual charm as from the ecstasy of a Madonna. The goddess does not reveal herself as one who can be ' ' touched FIG. 120. HEAD OF ATHENA. Bologna. * " Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture," pages 190 A History of Greek Art. with a feeling of our infirmities ' ' ; but by the power of her pure, passionless beauty she sways our minds and hearts. The supreme architectural achievement of the Peri- clean age was the Parthenon, which crowned the Athe- nian Acropolis. It appears to have been begun in 447, and was roofed over and perhaps substantially finished by 438. Its sculptures were more extensive than those of any other Greek temple, comprising two pediment- groups, the whole set of metopes of the exterior frieze, ninety-two in number, and a continuous frieze of bas- relief, 522 feet 10 inches in total length, surrounding the cella and its vestibules (cf. Fig. 56). After serving its original purpose for nearly a thousand years, the build- ing was converted into a Christian church and then, in the fifteenth century, into a Mohammedan mosque. In 1687 Athens was besieged by the forces of Venice. The Parthenon was used by the Turks as a powder-magazine, and was consequently made the target for the enemy's shells. The result was an explosion, which converted the building into a ruin. Of the sculptures which escaped from this catastrophe, many small pieces were carried off at the time or subsequently, while other pieces were used as building stone or thrown into the lime-kiln. Most of those which remained down to the beginning of this century were acquired by Lord Elgin, acting under a permission from the Turkish government (1801-3), and in 1816 were bought for the British Museum. The rest are in Athens, either in their original positions on the building, or in the Acropolis Museum. The best preserved metopes of the Parthenon belong to the south side and represent scenes from the contest between Lapiths and Centaurs (cf. page 174). These metopes differ markedly in style from one another, and The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 191 must have been not only executed, but designed, by different hands. One or two of them are spiritless and uninter- esting. Others, while fine in their way, show little vehemence of action. Fig. 121 gives one of this class. Fig. 122 is very dif- ferent. In this "the Lapith presses for- ward, advancing his left hand to seize the rearing Centaur by the throat, and forc- ing him on his haunches FIG. 121. PARTHENON METOPE. London, British Museum. the right arm of the Lapith is drawn back, as if to strike ; his right hand, now wanting, probably held a sword The Centaur, rearing up against his antago- nist, tries in vain to pull away the left hand of the Lapith, which, in Carrey's drawing [made in 1674] he grasps."* Observe how skilfully FIG. 122. PARTHENON METOPE. J London, British Museum. the design is adapted to the square field, so as to leave no unpleasant blank * A. H. Smith, " Catalogue of Sculpture in the British Museum," page 136. 192 A History of Greek Art, spaces, how flowing and free from monotony are the lines of the composition, how effective (in contrast with Fig. 121) is the management of the drapery, and, above all, what vigor is displayed in the attitudes. Fig. 123 is of kindred char- acter. These two metopes and two oth- ers, one representing a victorious Centaur prancing in savage glee over the body of his prostrate foe, the other showing a Lapith about to strike a Centaur al- ready wounded in the back, are among the very best works of Greek sculpture pre- served to us. The Parthenon frieze presents an idealized picture of the procession which wound its way upward from the market-place to the Acropolis on the occasion of Athena's chief festival. Fully to illustrate this exten- sive and varied composition is out of the question here. All that is possible is to give three or four representative pieces and a few comments. Fig. 124 shows the best preserved piece of the entire frieze. It belongs to a company of divinities, seated to right and left of the central group of the east front, and conceived as specta- tors of the scene. The figure at the left of the illustra- tion is almost certainly Posidon, and the others are perhaps Apollo and Artemis. In Fig. 125 three youths advance with measured step, carrying jars filled with wine, while a fourth youth stoops to lift his jar ; at the FIG. 123. PARTHENON METOPE. London, British Museum. The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 193 extreme right may be seen part of a flute-player, whose figure was completed on the next slab. The attitudes and draperies of the three advancing youths, though similar, are subtly varied. So everywhere monotony is absent from the frieze. Fig. 126 is taken from the most ani- mated and crowded part of the design. Here Athenian youths, in a great variety of dress and undress, dash FIG. 124. PORTION OF SLAB OF PARTHENON FRIEZE (EAST). Athens, Acropolis Museum. forward on small, mettlesome horses. Owing to the principle of isoccphaly (cf. page 145), the mounted men are of smaller dimensions than those on foot, but the difference does not offend the eye. In Fig. 127 we have, on a somewhat larger scale, the heads of four chariot-horses instinct with fiery life. Fig. 132 may also be consulted. An endless variety in attitude and spirit, from the calm of the ever-blessed gods to the most impetuous movement ; grace and harmony of line ; 194 A History of Greek Art. an almost faultless execution such are some of the qualities which make the Parthenon frieze the source of inexhaustible delight. The composition of the group in the western pedi- ment is' fairly well known, thanks to a French artist, Jacques Carrey, who made a drawing of it in 1674, when FIG. 125. SLAB OF PARTHENON FRIEZE (NORTH). Athens, Acropolis Museum. it was still in tolerable preservation. The subject was, in the words of Pausanias, ' ' the strife of Posidon with Athena for the land" of Attica. In the eastern pedi- ment the subject was the birth of Athena. The central figures, eleven in number, had disappeared long before Carrey's time, having probably been removed when the temple was converted into a church. On the other hand, the figures near the angles have been better preserved than any of those from the western pediment, The Great Age of Greek Sculpture, 195 with one exception. The names of these eastern figures have been the subject of endless guess-work. All that is really certain is that at the southern corner Helios (the Sun-god) was emerging from the sea in a chariot drawn by four horses, and at the northern corner Selene (the Moon-goddess) or perhaps Nyx ( Night) was descending in a similar chariot. Fig. 128 is the figure that was placed next to the horses of Helios. The young god or hero reclines in an easy attitude on a rock ; under him are spread his mantle and the skin of FIG. 126. PORTIONS OF Two SLABS OF PARTHENON FRIEZE (NORTH). London, British Museum. a panther or some such animal. In Fig. 1 29 we have, beginning on the right, the head of one of Selene's horses and the torso of the goddess herself, then a group of three closely connected female figures, known as the "Three Fates," seated or reclining on uneven, rocky ground, and last the body and thighs of a winged god- 196 A History of Greek Art. dess, Victory or Iris, perhaps belonging in the western pediment. Fig. 130, from the northern corner of the western pediment, is commonly taken for a river-god. We possess but the broken remnants of these two pediment-groups, and the key to the interpretation of much that we do' possess is lost. We cannot then fully appreciate the intention of the great artist who conceived these works. Yet even in their ruin and their isolation FIG. 127. HEADS OF CHARIOT-HORSES, FROM PARTHENON FRIKZK (SOUTH). London, British Museum. (From the authorized Rrantwood edition of Ruskin's "Aratra Pentelici," PI. XIII., by permission of Maynard, Merrill, & Co.) the pediment-figures of the Parthenon are the sublimest creations of Greek art that have escaped annihilation. We have no ancient testimony as to the authorship of the Parthenon sculptures, beyond the statement of Plutarch, quoted above, that Phidias was the general The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 197 superintendent of all artistic works undertaken during Pericles' s administration. If this statement be true, it still leaves open a wide range of conjecture as to the nature and extent of his responsibility in this particular case. Appealing to the sculptures themselves for infor- mation, we find among the metopes such differences of FIG. 128. SO-CALLED " THESEUS " OF THE PARTHENON. London, British Museum. style as exclude the notion of single authorship. With the frieze and the pediment-groups, however, the case is dif- ferent. Each of these three compositions must, of course, have been designed by one master-artist and executed by or with the help of subordinate artists or workmen. Now the pediment-groups, so far as preserved, strongly suggest a single presiding genius for both, and there is no difficulty in ascribing the design of the frieze to the same artist. Was it Phidias? The question has been much agitated of late years, but the evidence at our dis- 198 A History of Greek Art. FIG. 129. GROUP OF PEDIMENT-FIGURES FROM THE PARTHENON. London, British Museum. posal does not admit of a decisive answer. The great argument for Phidias lies in the incomparable merit of these works ; and with the probability that his genius is FIG. 130. SO-CALLED "ILISSOS" OF THE PARTHENON. London, British Museum. here in some degree revealed to us we must needs be content. After all, it is of much less consequence to be The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 199 assured of the master's name than to know and enjoy the masterpieces themselves. The great statesman under whose administration these immortal sculptures were produced was commemorated by a portrait statue or head, set up during his lifetime on the Athenian Acropolis ; it was from the hand of Cresilas, of Cydonia in Crete. It is per- haps this portrait of which copies have come down to us. The best of these is given in Fig. 131. The features are, we may believe, the authentic features of Pericles, somewhat idealized, according to the custom of portraiture in this age. The helmet characterizes the wearer as general. The artistic activ- ity in Athens did not cease with the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War in 431. The city was full of sculptors, many of whom had come directly under the influence of Phidias, and FIG. 131. HEAD OF PERICLES. London, British Museum. 2Oo A History of Greek Art. they were not left idle. The demand from private indi- viduals for votive sculptures and funeral reliefs must in- deed have been abated, but was not extinguished ; and in the intervals of the protracted war the state undertook important enterprises with an undaunted spirit. It is to this period that the Erechtheum probably belongs (42o?~4o8), though all that we certainly know is that the building was nearly finished some time before 409 and that the work was resumed in that year. The tem- ple had a sculptured frieze of which fragments are extant, but these are far surpassed in interest by the Caryatides of the southern porch (Fig. 67). The name Cary- atides, by the way, meets us first in the pages of Vitru- vius, a Roman architect of the time of Augustus ; a contemporary Athenian inscription, to which we are indebted for many details concerning the building, calls them simply ' ' maidens. ' ' As you face the front of the porch, the three maidens on your right support them- selves chiefly on the left leg, the three on your left on the right leg (Fig. 132), so that the leg in action is the one nearer to the end of the porch. The arms hung straight at the sides, one of them grasping a corner of the small mantle. The pose and drapery show what Attic sculpture had made of the old Peloponnesian type of standing female figure in the Doric chiton (cf. page 177). The fall of the garment preserves the same general features, but the stuff has become much more pliable. It is interesting to note that, in spite of a close general similarity, no two maidens are exactly alike, as they would have been if they had been reproduced mechanically from a finished model. These subtle variations are among the secrets of the beauty of this porch, as they are of the Parthenon frieze. One may be permitted to object altogether to die use of human The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 201 figures as architectural supports, but if the thing was to be done at all, it could not have been better done. The weight that -the maidens bear is comparatively small, and their figures are as strong as they are graceful. FIG. 132. CARYATID FROM THE ERECHTHEUM. London, British Museum. To the period of the Peloponnesian War may also be assigned a sculptured balustrade which inclosed and protected the precinct of the little Temple of Wingless Victory on the Acropolis (Fig. 70). One slab of this balustrade is shown in Fig. 133. It represents a 202 A History of Greek Art. winged Victory stooping to tie (or, as some will have it, to untie) her sandal. The soft Ionic chiton, clinging to the form, reminds one of the drapery of the reclining goddess from the eastern pediment of the Parthenon (Fig. 129), but it finds its closest analogy, among dat- able sculptures, in a fragment of relief recently found at Rhamnus in Attica. This belonged to the pedestal of a statue by Agoracri- tus, one of the most famous pupils of Phidias. The Attic grave- relief given in Fig. 1 34 seems to belong somewhere near the end of the fifth cen- tury. The subject is a common one on this class of mon- uments, but is nowhere else so ex- quisitely treated. There is no allusion to the fact of death. Hegeso, the deceased lady, is seated and is holding up a necklace or some such object (originally, it may be supposed, indi- cated by color), which she has just taken from the jewel- box held out by the standing slave-woman. Another fine grave-relief (Fig. 135) may be introduced here, FIG. 133. RELIEF OF A VICTORY. Athens, Acropolis Museum. The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 203 FIG. 134. GRAVE-RELIEF OF HEGESO. Athens, Dipylon Cemetery. though it perhaps belongs to the beginning of the fourth century rather than to the end of the fifth. It must commemorate some young Athenian cavalryman. It 204 A History of Greek Art. is characteristic that the relief ignores his death and represents him in a moment of victory. Observe that on both these monuments there is no attempt at real- istic portraiture and that on both we may trace the influence of the style of the Parthenon frieze. Among the other bas-reliefs which show that influence there is no difficulty in choosing one of exceptional beauty, the so-called Orpheus relief (Fig. 136). This FIG. 135. ATTIC GRAVE-RELIEF. Rome, Villa Albani. is known to us in three copies, unless indeed the Naples example be the original. The'story here set forth is one of the most touching in Greek mythology. Orpheus, the Thracian singer, has descended into Hades in quest of his dead wife, Eurydice, and has so charmed by his music the stern Persephone that she has suffered him to lead back his wife to the upper air, provided only he will not look upon her on the way. But love has over- The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 205 come him. He has turned and looked, and the doom of an irrevocable parting is sealed. In no unseemly FIG. 136. RELIEF REPRESENTING ORPHEUS, EURYDICE, AND HERMES. Naples. paroxysm of grief, but tenderly, sadly, they look their last at one another, while Hermes, guide of departed spirits, makes gentle signal for the wife's return. In the chastened pathos of this scene we have the quintessence 2o6 A History of Greek Art. of the temper of Greek art in dealing with the fact of death. Turning now from Athens to Argos, which, though politically weak, was artistically the rival of Athens in importance, we find Polyclitus the dominant master there, as Phidias was in the other city. Polyclitus sur- vived Phidias and may have been the younger of the two. The only certain thing is that he was in the plenitude of his powers as late as 420, for his gold and ivory statue of Hera was made for a temple built to re- place an earlier temple destroyed by fire in 423. His principal material was bronze. As regards subjects, his great specialty was the representation of youthful athletes. His reputation in his own day and afterwards was of the highest ; there were those who ranked him above Phidias. Thus Xenophon represents* an Athenian as assigning to Polyclitus a preeminence in sculpture like that of Homer in epic poetry and that of Sophocles in tragedy ; and Strabof pronounced his gold and ivory statues in the Temple of Hera near Argos the finest in artistic merit among all such works, though inferior to those of Phidias in size and costliness. But probably the more usual verdict was that reported by Quintilian,J which, applauding as unrivaled his rendering of the human form, found his divinities lacking in majesty. In view of the exalted rank assigned to Polyclitus by Greek and Roman judgment, his identifiable works are a little disappointing. His Doryphorus, a bronze figure of a young athlete holding a spear such as was used in the pentathlon ((/". page 168), exists in numerous copies. The Naples copy (Fig. 137), found in Pompeii * Memorabilia I., 4, 3 (written about 390 B. C.). t VIII., page 372 (written about 18 A. D.). J De Institutione Oratorio XII., 10, 7 (written about 90 A. D.). The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 207 in 1797, is the best preserved, being substantially antique throughout, but is of indifferent workmanship. The young man, of massive build, stands supporting his weight on the right leg ; the left is bent backward from the knee, the foot touching the ground only in front. Thus the body is a good deal curved. This atti- tude is an advance upon any standing motive attained in the "Tran- sitional period" (cf. page 165). It was much used by Polyclitus, and is one of the marks by which statues of his may be recognized. The head of the Dory- phorus, as seen from the side, is more nearly rec- tangular tnan FlG> I37 ._ COPY OF THE DORYPHORUS OF POLY- the usual Attic CL1TUS - Naples - heads of the period, e. g. , in the Parthenon frieze. For the characteristic face our best guide is a bronze copy 208 A History of Greek Art. of the head from Herculaneum (Fig. 138), to which our illustration does less than justice. A strong likeness to the Doryphorus exists in a whole series of youthful athletes, which are therefore with probability traced to Polyclitus as their author or inspirer. Such is a statue of a boy in Dresden, of which the head is shown in Fig. 139. One of these obviously allied works can be identified with a statue by Polyclitus known to us from our literary sources. It is the so-called Diadumenos, a youth binding the fillet of victory about his head. This exists in sev- eral copies, the best of which has been Na P' es - recently found on the island of Delos and is not yet published. An interesting statue of a different order, very often attributed to Polyclitus, may with less of confidence be accepted as his. Our illustration (Fig. 140) is taken from the Berlin copy of this statue, in which the arms, pillar, nose, and feet are modern, but are guaranteed by other existing copies. It is the figure of an Amazon, who has been wounded in the right breast. She leans upon a support at her left side and raises her right hand FIG. 138. BRONZE COPY OF THE HEAD OF THE DORYPHORUS. The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 209 to her head in an attitude perhaps intended to suggest exhaustion, yet hardly suitable to the position of the wound. The attitude of the figure, especially the legs, is very like that of the Doryphorus, and the face is thought by many to show a family likeness to his. There are three other types of Amazon which seem to be connected with this one, but the mutual relations of the four types are too perplexing to be here discussed. It is a welcome change to turn from copies to originals. The American School of Classical Studies at Athens has carried on excavations (1890-95) on the site of the famous sanct- uary of Hera near Argos, and has un- covered the foun- dations both of the earlier temple, burned in 423, and of the later temple, in which stood the gold and ivory im- age by Polyclitus, as well as of adjacent buildings. Besides many other objects of interest, there have been brought to light several frag- ments of the meto- FIG. 139. HEAD OF A BOY. AFTER POLYCLITUS. DCS of the Second Dresden. (From Furtwangler, " Meis- terwerke," PI. XXVII.) temple, which, to- gether with a few fragments from the same source found earlier, form a precious collection of materials for the study of the Argive school of sculpture of about 420. 210 A History of Greek Art. Still more interesting, at least to such as are not specialists, is a head which was found on the same site (Fig. 141), and which, to judge by its style, must date from the same period. It is a good illustration of the uncertainty which besets the at- tempt to classify extant Greek sculp- tures into local schools that this head has been claimed with equal confidence as Ar- give* and as Attic in style. In truth, Argive and Attic art had so acted and reacted upon one another that it is small wonder if their productions are in some cases indis- tinguishable by us. The last remark applies also to the FIG. 140. WOUNDED AMAZON, PERHAPS AFTER bronze Statue shown in Fig. 142, which is believed by high authorities to be an original Greek * So by Professor Charles Waldstein, who directed the excavations. The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 211 work and which has been claimed both for Athens and for Argos. The standing position, while not identical with that of the Doryphorus, the Diadumenos, and the wounded Amazon, is strikingly similar, as is also the FIG. 141. HEAD FROM THE ARGIVE Athens, National Museum. (From " Excavations of the American School of Athens at the Heraion of Argos, 1892," PI. V.) form of the head. At all events, the statue is a fine ex- ample of apparently unstudied ease, of that consum- mate art which conceals itself. The only sculptor of the fifth century who is at once 212 A History of Greek Art. known to us from literary tradition and represented by an authenticated and original work is Paeonius of Mende in Thrace. He was an artist of secondary rank, if we may judge from the fact that his name occurs only in Pausanias; but in the brilliant period of Greek history even secondary artists were capable of work which less fortunate ages could not rival. Pausa- nias mentions a Vic- tory by Paeonius at Olympia, a votive offering of the Mes- senians for successes gained in war. Por- tions of the pedestal of this statue with the dedicatory in- scription and the artist's signature were found on De- FIG. M2.-THK "IDOLINO." cember 20, 1875, at Florence, Archaeological Museum. fa e beginning of the German excavations, and the mutilated statue itself on the following day (Fig. 143). A restoration of the figure by a German sculptor (Fig. 144) may be trusted for nearly everything but the face. The goddess is The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 213 represented in descending flight. Poised upon a trian- gular pedestal about thirty feet high, she seems all but independent of support. Her draperies, blown by the wind, form a background for her figure. An eagle at her feet suggests the element through which she moves. Never was a more audacious design executed in marble. Yet it does not im- press us chiefly as a tour de force. The beholder forgets the triumph over mate- rial difficulties in the sense of buoyancy, speed, and grace which the figure in- spires. Pausanias records that the Messenians of his day believed the statue to commem- orate an event which happened in 425, while he himself preferred to con- nect it with an event of 453. The inscription on the pedestal is indecisive on this point. It runs in these terms: "The Messenians and Naupactians dedicated [this statue] to the Olympian Zeus, as a tithe [of the spoils] from their enemies. Paeonius of Mende made it ; and he was victorious [over his competitors] in making FIG. 143. VICTORY OF PAEONIUS. Olympia. 2I 4 A History of Greek Art. the acroteria for the temple." The later of the two dates mentioned by Pausanias has been generally ac- _J FIG. 144. VICTORY OF P/EONIUS, RESTORED. (From Botticher, " Olympia," PI. XIII.) cepted, though not without recent protest. This would give about the year 423 for the completion and erection of this statue. CHAPTER IX. THE GREAT AGE OF GREEK SCULPTURE. SECOND PERIOD : 400-323 B. C. IN the fourth century art became even more cosmo- politan than before. The distinctions between local schools were nearly effaced and the question of an artist's birthplace or residence ceases to have much im- portance. Athens, however, maintained her artistic pre- eminence through the first half or more of the century. Several of the most eminent sculptors of the period were certainly or probably Athenians, and others appear to have made Athens their home for a longer or shorter time. It is therefore common to speak of a " younger Attic school," whose members would include most of the notable sculptors of this period. What the tendencies of the times were will best be seen by studying the most eminent representatives of this group or school. The first great name to meet us is that of Scopas of Paros. His artistic career seems to have begun early in the fourth century, for he was the architect of a temple of Athena at Tegea in Arcadia which was built to replace one destroyed by fire in 395-4. He was active as late as the middle of the century, being one of four sculptors engaged on the reliefs of the Mausoleum or funeral monument of Maussollus, satrap of Caria, who died in 351-0, or perhaps two years earlier. That is about all we know of his life, for it is hardly more than a conjec- ture that he took up his abode in Athens for a term of 215 216 A History of Greek Art. years. The works of his hands were widely distributed in Greece proper and on the coast of Asia Minor. Until lately nothing very definite was known of the style of Scopas. While numerous statues by him, all representing divinities or other imaginary beings, are mentioned in our literary sources, Only one of these is described in such a way as to give any notion of its artistic character. This was a Maenad, or female at- tendant of the god Bacchus, . who was represented in a frenzy of religious excitement. The theme suggests a strong tendency on the part of Scopas toward emotional expression, but this inference does not carry us very far. The study of Scopas has entered upon a new stage since some fragments of sculpture belonging to the Temple of Athena at Tegea have ^become known. The presump- tion is that, as Scopas was the architect of the building, he also de- signed, if he did not execute, the pediment- sculptures. If this be true, then we have at last authentic, though scanty, evidence of his style. The fragments thus far discovered con- sist of little more than two human heads and a boar's head. One of the human heads is here reproduced (Fig. 145). Sadly mutilated as it is, is has become possible by its help and that of its fellow to recognize with great probability the FIG. 145. HEAD FROM TEGEA. Athens, National Museum. The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 217 authorship of Scopas in a whole group of allied works. Not to dwell on anatomical details, which need casts for their proper illustration, the obvious characteristic mark of Scopadean heads is a tragic intensity of expression unknown to earlier Greek art. It is this which makes the Tegea heads so impressive in spite of the " rude wast- ing of old Time." The magnificent head of Meleager in the garden of the Villa Medici in Rome (Fig. 146) shows this same quality. A fiery eagerness of temper animates the mar- ble, and a certain pathos, as if born of a consciousness of approaching doom. So masterly is the workmanship here, FlG I46 ._H EAD OF MELE AGER. cr> iift-p>rKr r<=>m n vi=>rl Rome, Villa Medici. (From the Antike Denk- mdler, I., PI. XL.) from the mechan- ical, uninspired manner of Roman copyists, that this head has been claimed as an original from the hand of Scopas, and so it may well be. Something of the same character belongs to a head of a goddess in Athens, shown in Fig. 147. Fig. 148 introduces us to another tendency of fourth century art. The group represents Eirene and Plutus (Peace and Plenty). It is in all probability a copy of a 218 A History of Greek Art. bronze work by Cephisodotus, which stood in Athens and was set up, it is conjectured, soon after 375, the year in which the worship of Eirene was officially estab- lished in Athens. The head of the child is antique, but does not belong to the figure ; copies of the child with the true head ex- ist in Athens and Dresden. The principal modern parts are : the right arm of the goddess (which should hold a scepter), her left hand with the vase, and both arms of the child; in place of the vase there should be a small horn of plenty, resting on the child's left arm. The senti- ment of this group is such as we have not met before. The tenderness ex- pressed by Eirene' s posture is as characteristic of the new era as the intensity of look in the head from Tegea. Cephisodotus was probably a near relative of a much greater sculptor, Praxiteles, perhaps his father. Prax- iteles is better known to us than any other Greek artist. For we have, to begin with, one authenticated original FIG. 147. HEAD OF A GODDESS. Athens, National Museum. The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 219 statue from his hand, besides three fourths of a bas-relief probably executed under his direction. In the second place, we can gather from our literary sources a cat- alogue of toward fifty of his works, a larger list than can be made out for any other sculptor. Moreover, of several pieces we get really enlightening descriptions, and there are in addition one or two valua- ble general comments on his style. Fi- nally two of his statues that are mentioned in literature can be identi- fied with suf- ficient certain- ty in copies. The basis of judgment is thus wide enough to warrant us in bringing numerous other works into relation with him. FIG. 148. EIRENK AND PLUTUS. Munich. 220 A History of Greek Art. FIG. 149. HKRMBS, BY PRAXITKLES. Olytnpia. About his life, however, we know, as in other cases, next to nothing. He was an Athenian and must have been somewhere near the age of Sco- pas, though seemingly rather younger. Pliny gives the h u n - dred and fourth Olympiad (370- 66) as the date at which he flourished, but this was probably about the begin- ning of his artistic career. Only one anecdote is told of him which is worth repeating here. When asked what ones among his mar- ble statues he rated highest he answered that those which Nicias had tinted were the best. The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 221 Nicias was an eminent painter of the period (see page 282, foot-note). The place of honor in any treatment of Praxiteles FIG. 150. HEAD AND BODY OF THE HERMES OF PRAXITELES. Olympia. must be given to the Hermes with the infant Dionysus on his arm (Figs. 149, 150). This statue was found on May 8, 1877, in the Temple of Hera at Olympia, lying in front of its pedestal. Here it had stood when Pau- 222 A History of Greek Art. sanias saw it and recorded that it was the work of Praxiteles. The legs of Hermes below the knees have been restored in plaster (only the right foot being antique), and so have the arms of Dionysus. Except for the loss of the right arm and the lower legs, the figure of Hermes is in admirable preservation, the surface being uninjured. Some notion of the luminosity of the Parian marble may be gained from Fig. 1 50. Hermes is taking the new-born Dionysus to the Nymphs to be reared by them. Pausing on his way, he has thrown his mantle over a convenient tree-trunk and leans upon it with the arm that holds the child. In his closed left hand he doubtless carried his herald's wand ; the lost right hand must have held up some object bunch of grapes or what-not for the entertainment of the little god. The latter is not truthfully proportioned ; in common with almost all sculptors before the time of Alexander, Praxiteles seems to have paid very little attention to the characteristic forms of infancy. But the Hermes is of unapproachable perfection. His symmet- rical figure, which looks slender in comparison with the Doryphorus of Polyclitus, is athletic without exaggera- tion, and is modeled with faultless skill. The attitude, with the weight supported chiefly by the right leg and left arm, gives to the body a graceful curve which Praxiteles loved. It is the last stage in the long de- velopment of an easy standing pose. The head is of the round Attic form, contrasting with the squarer Peloponnesian type ; the face a fine oval. The lower part of the forehead between the temples is prominent ; the nose not quite straight, but slightly arched at the middle. The whole expression is one of indescribable refinement and radiance. The hair, short and curly, illustrates the possibilities of marble in the treatment of The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 223 that feature ; in place of the wiry appearance of hair in bronze we find here a slight roughness of surface, suggestive of the soft texture of actual hair (cf. Fig. 146 and contrast Fig. 138). The drapery that falls over the tree-trunk is treated with a degree of elabora- tion and richness which does not occur in fifth century work ; but beautiful as it is, it is kept subordinate and does not unduly attract our attention. For us the Hermes stands alone and without a rival. The statue, however, did not in antiquity enjoy any extraordinary celebrity, and is in fact not even men- tioned in extant literature except by Pausanias. The most famous work of Praxiteles was the Aphrodite of Cnidus in southwestern Asia Minor. This was a temple-statue ; yet the sculptor, departing from the practice of earlier times, did not scruple to represent the goddess as nude. With the help of certain imperial coins of Cnidus this Aphrodite has been identified in a great number of copies. She is in the act of dropping her garment from her left hand in preparation for a bath ; she supports herself chiefly by the right leg, and the body has a curve approaching that of the Hermes, though here no part of the weight is thrown upon the arm. The subject is treated with consummate delicacy, far removed from the sensuality too usual in a later age ; and yet, when this embodiment of Aphrodite is com- pared with fifth century ideals, it must be recognized as illustrating a growing fondness on the part of sculptor and public for the representation of physical charm. Not being able to offer a satisfactory illustration of the whole statue, I have chosen for reproduction a copy of the head alone (Fig. 151). It will help the reader to divine the simple loveliness of the original. Pliny mentions among the works in bronze by Prax- 224 A History of Greek Art. iteles a youthful Apollo, called " Sauroctonos " (Lizard- slayer). Fig. 152 is a marble copy of this, considerably restored. The god, conceived in the likeness of a beautiful boy, leans against a tree, preparing to stab a lizard with an arrow, which should be in the right hand. The graceful, leaning pose and the soft beauty of the youth- ful face and flesh are characteristically Praxitelean. Two or three satyrs by Praxiteles are mentioned by Greek and Roman writers, and an an- ecdote is told by Pausanias which im- plies that one of them enjoyed an ex- FIG. 151. COPY OF THE HEAD OF THE APHRO- t J * DITE OFCNIDUS. Berlin, in private possession. CCDtional fame. LJn- ( From the Antike Denkmaler, I. , page 30.) * fortunately they are not described ; but among the many satyrs to be found in museums of ancient sculpture there are two types in which the style of Praxiteles, as we have now learned to know it, is so strongly marked that we can hardly go wrong in ascribing them both to him. Both exist in numerous copies. Our illustration of the first (Fig. 153) is taken from the copy of which Hawthorne wrote, so subtle a description in ' ' The Marble Faun. ' ' The statue is somewhat restored, but the restoration is not open to doubt, except as regards the single pipe held in The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 225 the right hand. No animal characteristic is to be found here save the pointed ears ; the face, however, retains a suggestion of the traditional satyr-type. ' ' The whole statue, unlike anything else that ever was wrought in that severe material of marble, conveys the idea of an amiable and sensual creature easy, mirthful, apt for jollity, yet not incapable of being touched by pathos. ' ' * In the Palermo copy of the other Praxitelean satyr (Fig. 1 54) the right arm is modern, but the restoration is substantially c o r - rect. The face of this statue has purely Greek fea- tures, and only the pointed ears remain to betray the mix- ture of animal na- ture with the human form. The original was probably of bronze. With Fig. 155 we revert from copies to an original work. This is one of three slabs which proba- bly decorated the pedestal of a group by Praxiteles representing Apollo, Leto, and Artemis ; a fourth slab, needed to complete * Hawthorne, "The Marble Faun," Vol. I., Chapter I. FIG. 152. COPY OF THE APOLLO SAUROCTONOS. Rome, Vatican Museum. 226 A History of Greek Art. FIG. 153. LEANING SATYR. Museum. Rome, Capitoline the series, has not been found. The presumption is strong that these reliefs were exe- cuted under the direction of Prax- iteles, perhaps from his design. The subject of one slab is the musical contest between Apollo and Mar- syas, while the other two bear figures of Muses. The latter are posed and draped with that delightful grace of which Praxiteles was master, and with which he seems to have inspired his pupils. The ex- ecution, however, is not quite fault- less, as witness the distortion in the right lower leg of the seated Muse in Fig. 155 other- wise an exquisite figure. The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 227 Among the many other works that have been claimed for Praxiteles on grounds of style, I venture to single out one (Fig. 156). The illus- tration is taken from one of sev- eral copies of a lost original, which, if it was not by Praxiteles himself, was by some one who had marvelously caught his spirit. That it represents the goddess Ar- temis we may probably infer from the short chiton, an ap- propriate gar- ment often worn by the divine huntress, but not by human maid- ens. Otherwise the goddess has no conventional attribute to mark her divinity. She is just a beautiful girl, engaged in fastening her mantle together with a brooch. In this way of conceiving a goddess, we see the same spirit that created the Apollo Sauroctonos. FIG. 154. SATYR POURING WINE. Palermo. 228 A History of Greek Art. The genius of Praxiteles, as thus far revealed to us, was preeminently sunny, drawn toward what is fair and graceful and untroubled, and ignoring what is tragic in human existence. This view of him is confirmed by what is known from literature of his subjects. The list includes five figures of Aphrodite, three or four of Eros, two of Apollo, two of Artemis, two of Dionysus, two or three of satyrs, two of the courtesan Phryne, and one of FIG. 155. RELIEF FROM MANTINEA. Athens, National Museum. a beautiful human youth binding a fillet about his hair, but no work whose theme is suffering or death is definitely ascribed to him. It is strange therefore to find Pliny saying that it was a matter of doubt in his time whether a group of the dying children of Niobe which stood in a temple of Apollo in Rome was by Scopas or Praxiteles. It is commonly supposed, though without decisive proof, that certain statues of Niobe and her children which exist in Florence and elsewhere are The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 229 copied from the group of which Pliny speaks. The story was that Niobe vaunted herself before Leto because she had seven sons and seven daughters, while Leto had borne only Apollo and Artemis. For her pre- sumption all her children were stricken down by the arrows of Apollo and Artemis. This punishment is the subject of the group. Fig. 157 gives the central figures ; they are Niobe herself and her youngest daughter, who has fled to her for protection. The Niobe has long been famous as an embodiment of haughtiness, maternal love, and sharp distress. But much finer in compo- sition, to my thinking, is Fig. 158. In this son of Niobe the end of the right arm and the entire left arm are modern. Originally this youth was grouped with a sister who has been wounded unto death. She has sunk upon the ground and her right arm hangs FIG. ^.-ARTEMIS, CALLED THE Di- 1- i t 1 f*. 1 ANA F GABII. Paris. Louvre. limply over his left knee, thus preventing his garment from falling. His left arm clasps her and he seeks ineffectually to protect her. 230 A History of Greek Art. That this is the true restoration is known from a copy in the Vatican of the wounded girl with a part of the brother. Except for this son of Niobe the Florentine figures are not worthy of their old-time reputation. As for their authorship, Praxiteles seems out of the ques- tion. The subject is in keeping with the genius of Sco- pas, but it is safer not to associate the group with any individual name. This reserve is the more advisable because Scopas and Praxiteles are but two stars, by far the brightest, to be sure, in a brilliant constel- lation of con- temporary art- ists. For the others it h im- possible to do much more here than to mention the most important names : Leocha- res and Timo- theus, whose civic ties are unknown, Bry- axis and Silani- on of Athens, and Euphranor of Corinth, the last equally famous as painter and sculp- tor. These artists seem to be emerging a little from FIG. 157. NIOBE AND A DAUGHTER OF NIOBE. Florence, Uffizi. The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 231 the darkness that has enveloped them, and it may be hoped that discoveries of new material and further study of already existing material will reveal them to us with some degree of clearness and cer- tainty. A good illustration of how new acquisitions may help us is afforded by a group of fragmen- tary sculptures found in the sanc- tuary of Asclepius near Epidauros in the years 1882-84 and belonging to the pediments of the principal tem- ple. An inscrip- tion was found on the same site which records the ex- penses incurred in building this tem- ple, and one item in it makes it probable that Timo- theus, the sculptor above mentioned, furnished the mod- els after which the pediment-sculptures were executed. The largest and finest fragment of these sculptures that has been found is given in Fig. 1 59. It belongs to the western pediment, which seems to have contained a battle of Greeks and Amazons. The Amazon of our illustration, mounted upon a rearing horse, is about to bring down her lance upon a fallen foe. The action is FIG. 158. A SON OF NIOBE. Florence, Uffizi. 232 A History of Greek Art. rendered with splendid vigor. The date of this temple and its sculptures may be put somewhere about 375. Reference was made above (page 215) to the Mauso- leum. The artists engaged on the sculptures which adorned that magnificent monument were, according to Pliny, Scopas, Leochares, Bryaxis, and Timotheus.* There seem to have been at least three s c u lp t u red friezes, but of only one have considerable re- mains been pre- served (</". Fig. 65). This has for its subject a battle of Greeks and Amazons, a theme which Greek sculptors and painters never wearied of reproducing. The preserved portions of this frieze amount in all to about eighty feet, but the slabs are not consecutive. Figs. 160 and 161 give two of the best pieces. The design falls into groups of two or three combatants, and these groups are varied with inexhaustible fertility and liveliness of * The tradition on this point was not quite uniform. Vitruvius names Prax- iteles as the fourth artist, but adds that some believed that Timotheus also was engaged. FIG. 159. MOUNTED AMAZON. Athens, National Museum. The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 233 imagination. Among the points which distinguish this from a work of the fifth century may be noted the FIG. 160. SLAB OF MAUSOLEUM FRIEZE. London, British Museum. slenderer forms of men and women and the more ex- pressive faces. The existing slabs, moreover, differ among themselves in style and merit, and an earnest at- FIG. 161. SLAB OF MAUSOLEUM FRIEZK. London, British Museum. tempt has been made to distribute them among the four artists named by Pliny, but without conclusive results. 234 A History of Greek Art, Since the Hermes of Praxiteles was brought to iight at Olympia there has been no discovery of Greek sculpture so dazzling in its splendor as that made in 1887 on the site of the necropolis of Sidon in Phenicia. There, in a group of communicating subterranean chambers, were found, along with an Egyptian sarcopha- gus, sixteen others of Greek workmanship, four of them adorned with reliefs of extraordinary beauty. They are FIG. 162. SARCOPHAGUS OF " THE MOURNING WOMEN." Constantinople. all now in the recently created Museum of Constanti- nople, which has thus become one of the places of fore- most consequence to every student and lover of Greek art. The sixteen sarcophagi are of various dates, from early in the fifth to late in the fourth century. The one shown in Fig. 162 may be assigned to about the middle of the fourth century. Its form is adapted from that of an Ionic temple. Between the columns are standing or seated women, their faces and attitudes expressing vary- ing degrees of grief. Our illustration is on too small a The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 235 scale to convey any but the dimmest impression of the dignity and beauty of this company of mourners. Above, on a sort of balustrade, may be seen a funeral procession. The old Temple of Artemis at Ephesus (cf. page 140) was set on fire and reduced to ruins by an incendiary in 356 B. C. , on the very night, it is said, in which Alexander the Great was born. The Ephesians rebuilt the temple on a much more magnificent scale, making of it the most extensive and sumptuous columnar edifice ever erected by a Greek architect. How promptly the work was begun we do not know, but it lasted into the reign of Alexander, so that its date may be given approximately as 350-30. Through the indefatigable perseverance of Mr. J. T. Wood, who conducted ex- cavations at Ephesus for the British Museum in 1863-74, the site of this temple, long unknown, was at last discovered and its remains unearthed. Following the example of the sixth century temple, it had the lowest drums of a number of its columns covered with relief sculpture. Of the half dozen recovered specimens Fig. 163 shows the finest. The subject is an unsolved riddle. The most prominent figure in the illustration is the god Hermes, as the herald's staff in his right hand shows. The female figures to right and left of him are good examples of that grace in pose and drapery which was characteristic of Greek sculpture in the age of Scopas and Praxiteles. The most beautiful Greek portrait statue that we possess is the Lateran Sophocles (Fig. 164). The figure has numerous small restorations, including the feet and the box of manuscript rolls. That Sophocles, the tragic poet, is represented, is known from the like- ness of the head to a bust inscribed with his name. He 236 A History of Greek Art. died in 406 B. C. The style of our statue, however, points to an original (if it be not itself the original) of about the middle of the fourth century. There were probably in existence at this time authentic likenesses of the poet, on which the sculptor based his work. The FIG. 163. SCULPTURED DRUM OF COLUMN FROM EPHESUS. London, British Museum. attitude of the figure is the perfection of apparent ease, but in reality of skilful contrivance to secure a due bal- ance of parts and variety and grace of line. The one garment, drawn closely about the person, illustrates the inestimable good fortune enjoyed by the Greek sculptor, The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 237 in contrast with the sculptor of to-day, in having to represent a costume so simple, so pliant, so capable of graceful adjustment. The head, however much it may contain of the actual look of Sophocles, must be idealized. To appre- ciate it properly one must remember that this poet, though he dealt with tragic themes, was not wont to brood over the sin and sorrow and un- fathomable mystery of the world, but was serene in his temper and prosperous in his life. The colossal head of Zeus shown in Fig. 165 was found a hun- dred years or more ago at Otricoli, a small village to the north of Rome. The antique part is a mere mask ; the back of the head and the bust are modern. The material is Carrara marble, a fact which FIG. 164. SOPHOCLES. Rome, Lateran Museum. 238 A History of Greek Art. alone would prove that the work was executed in Italy and in the imperial period. At first this used to be re- garded as copied from the Olympian Zeus of Phidias (page 185), but in the light of increased acquaintance with the style of Phidias and his age, this attribution has long been seen to be impossible. The original belongs about at the end of the period now un- der review, or pos- sibly still later. Although only a copy, the Otricoli Zeus is the finest representation we have of the father of gods and men. The predominant ex- pression is one of gentleness and be- nevolence, but the lofty brow, trans- versely furrowed, tells of thought and will, and the leonine hair of strength. With Lysippus of Sicyon we reach the last name of first-rate importance in the history of Greek sculpture. There is the usual uncertainty about the dates of his life, but it is certain that he was in his prime during the reign of Alexander (336-23). Thus he belongs essen- FIG. 165. HEAD OF ZEUS. Rome, Vatican Museum. The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 239 tially to the generation succeeding that of Scopas and Praxiteles. He appears to have worked exclusively in bronze ; at least we hear of no work in marble from his hands. He must have had a long life. Pliny credits him with fifteen hundred statues, but this is scarcely credible. His subjects suggest that his genius was of a very different bent from that of Praxiteles. No statue of Aphrodite or indeed of any goddess (except the Muses) is ascribed to him ; on the other hand, he made at least four statues of Zeus, one of them nearly sixty feet high, and at least four figures of Heracles, of which one was colossal, while one was less than a foot high, besides groups representing the labors of Heracles. In short, the list of his statues of superhuman beings, though it does include an Eros and a Dionysus, looks as if he had no especial predilection for the soft loveli- ness of youth, but rather for mature and vigorous forms. He was famous as a portrait-sculptor and made numer- ous statues of Alexander, from whom he received con- spicuous recognition. Naturally, too, he accepted commissions for athlete statues ; five such are mentioned by Pausanias as existing at Olympia. An allegorical figure by him of Cairos (Opportunity) receives lavish praise from a late rhetorician. Finally, he is credited with a statue of a tipsy female flute-player. This deserves especial notice as the first well-assured example of a work of Greek sculpture ignoble in its subject and obviously unfit for any of the purposes for which sculp- ture had chiefly existed (cf. page 124). It is Pliny who puts us in the way of a more direct acquaintance with this artist than the above facts can give. He makes the general statement that Lysippus departed from the canon of proportions previously followed (z. e. , probably, by Polyclitus and his imme- 240 A History of Greek Art. diate followers), making the head smaller and the body slenderer and "dryer," and he mentions a statue by him in Rome called an Apoxyomenos, /. e. , an athlete scraping himself with a strigil. A copy of such a statue was found in Rome in 1849 (Fig. 1 66). The fingers of the right hand with the inappropriate die are modern, as are also some additional bits here and there. Now the coincidence in subject between this statue and that men- tioned by Pliny would not alone be decisive. Polyclitus also made an Apoxyomenos, and, for all we know, other sculptors may have used the same motive. But the statue in question is certainly later than Polyclitus, and its agreement with what Pliny tells us of the proportions adopted by Lysippus is as close as could be desired (contrast Fig. 137). We therefore need not scruple to accept it as Lysippian. FIG. 166. COPY OF THE APOXYOMENOS OF LYSIPPUS. Rome, Vatican Museum. The Great Age of Greek Sculpture. 241 Our young athlete, before beginning his exercise, had rubbed his body with oil and, if he was to wrestle, had sprinkled himself with sand. Now, his exercise over, he is removing oil and sweat and dirt with the instrument regularly used for that purpose. His slender figure suggests elasticity and agility rather than brute strength. The face (Fig. 167) has not the radiant charm which Prax- iteles would have given it, but it is both fine and alert. The eyes are deeply set ; the division of the upper from the lower forehead is marked by a groove; the hair lies in expressive dis- order. In the bronze original the tree-trunk behind the left leg was FIG. 167. HKAD OF THE APOXYOMENOS. doubtless absent, as ( also the disagreeable support (now broken) which ex- tended from the right leg to the right fore-arm. The best authenticated likeness of Alexander the Great is a bust in the Louvre (Fig. 168) inscribed with his name: "Alexander of Macedon, son of Philip." The surface has been badly corroded and the nose is restored. The work, which is only a copy, may go back to an original by Lysippus, though the evidence 242 A History of Greek Art. for that belief, a certain resemblance to the head of the Apoxyomenos, is hardly as convincing as one could desire. The king is here represented, one would guess, at the age of thirty or thereabouts. Now as he was absent from Europe from the age of twenty-two until his death at Babylon at the age of thirty-three (323 B. C), it would seem likely that Lysippus, or who- ever the sculptor was, based his por- trait upon likenesses taken some years earlier. Conse- quently, although portraiture in the age of Alexander had become prevail- i n g 1 y realistic, it would be unsafe to regard this head as a conspicuous ex- FIG. 168. HEAD OF ALEXANDER. Paris, Louvre, ample of the new (From Kopp, " Das Bildniss Alexanders," PI. I.) tendency. The artist probably aimed to present a recognizable like- ness and at the same time to give a worthy expression to the great conqueror's qualities of character. If the latter object does not seem to have been attained, one is free to lay the blame upon the copyist and time. CHAPTER X. THE HELLENISTIC PERIOD OF GREEK SCULPTURE. 323-146 B. C. THE reign of Alexander began a new era in Greek history, an era in which the great fact was the dissemi- nation of Greek culture over wide regions to which it had been alien. This period, in which Egypt and western Asia were ruled by men of Greek or Macedonian blood and gradually took on more or less of Greek civili- zation, is often called the Hellenistic period. Under the new political and social order new artistic conditions were developed. For one thing, Athens and the other old centers of artistic activity lost their pre- eminence, while new centers were created in the East. The only places which our literary sources mention as seats of important schools of sculpture in the two centuries following the death of Alexander are Rhodes and Pergamum. Then again a demand now grew up for works of sculpture to be used as mere ornaments in the interiors of palaces and private houses, as well as in public build- ings and places. This of course threw open the door for subjects which had been excluded when sculpture was dominated by a sacred purpose. Sculptors were now free to appeal to the lower tastes of their patrons. The practice of " art for art's sake " had its day, and trivial, comical, ugly, harrowing, or sensual themes were treated with all the resources of technical skill. In short, the position and purposes of the art of sculpture 243 244 A History of Greek Art. became very like what they are to-day. Hence the untrained modern student feels much more at home in a collection of Hellenistic sculpture than in the presence of the severer, sublimer creations of the age of Phidias. It is by no means meant to pass a sweeping condem- nation upon the productions of the post-classical period. Realistic portraiture was now practiced with great fre- quency and high success. Many of the genre statues and decorative reliefs of the time are admirable and delightful. Moreover, the old uses of sculpture were not abandoned, and though the tendency toward sensational- FIG. 169. THREE TANAGRA FIGURINES. London, British Museum. ism was strong, a dignified and exalted work was some- times achieved. But, broadly speaking, we must admit the loss of that "noble simplicity and quiet grandeur " the phrase is Winckelmann's which stamped the creations of the age of Phidias. Greek sculpture gained immensely in variety, but at the expense of its elevation of spirit. The Hellenistic Period of Greek Sculpture. 245 Although this sketch is devoted principally to bronze and marble sculpture, I cannot resist the temptation to illustrate by a few examples the charming little terra- cotta figurines which have been found in such great numbers in graves at Tanagra and elsewhere in Bceotia FIG. 170. THREE TANAGRA FIGURINES. London, British Museum. (Figs. 169, 170). It is a question whether the best of them were not produced before the end of the period covered by the last chapter. At all events, they are post-Praxitelean. The commonest subjects are standing or seated women ; young men, lads, and children are also often met with. Fig. 170 shows another favorite figure, the winged Eros, represented as a chubby boy of four or five a conception of the god of Love which makes its first appearance in the Hellenistic period. The men who modeled these statuettes were doubtless The Hellenistic Period of Greek Sculpture. 247 regarded in their own day as very humble craftsmen, but the best of them had caught the secret of graceful poses and draperies, and the execution of their work is as delicate as its conception is refined. Returning now to our proper subject, we may be- gin with the latest and most magnificent of the sar- cophagi found at Sidon (Fig. 171 ; cf. page 234). This belongs somewhere near the end of the fourth century. It is decorated with relief-sculpture on all four sides and in the gables of the cover. On the long side shown in our illustration the subject is a battle between Greeks and Persians, perhaps the battle of Issus, fought in 333. Alexander the Great, recog- nizable by the skin of a lion's head which he wears like Heracles, instead of a helmet, is to be seen at the extreme left. The design, which looks crowded and confused when reduced to a small scale, is in reality well arranged and extremely spirited, besides being exquisitely wrought. But the crowning interest of the work lies in the unparalleled freshness with which it has kept its color. Garments, saddle-cloths, pieces of armor, and so on, are tinted in delicate colors, and the finest details, such as bow-strings, are perfectly distinct. The nude flesh, though not covered with opaque paint, has received some application which differentiates it from the glittering white background, and gives it a sort of ivory hue. The effect of all this color is thoroughly refined, and the work is a revelation of the beauty of polychromatic sculpture. The Victory of Samothrace (Fig. 172) can also be dated at about the end of the fourth century. The fig- ure is considerably above life-size. It was found in 1863, broken into a multitude of fragments, which have been carefully united. There are no modern pieces, ex- 248 A History of Greek Art. cept in the wings. The statue stood on a pedestal having the form of a ship's prow, the principal parts of which were found by an Austrian expedition to Samothrace in 1875. These fragments were subsequently conveyed to the Louvre, and the Vic- tory now stands on her original pedestal. For de- termining the date and the proper restoration of this work we have the fortunate help of numismatics. Cer- tain silver coins of Deme- trius Poliorcetes, who reigned 306-286 B. C., bear upon one side a Vic- tory which agrees closely with her of Samothrace, even to the great prow- pedestal. The type is sup- posed on good grounds to commemorate an impor- tant naval victory won by Demetrius over Ptolemy in FIG. 172. VICTORY OF SAKOTHRACE. Paris, Louvre. The Hellenistic Period of Greek Sculpture. 249 306. In view, then, of the close resemblance between coin-type and statue, it seems reasonably certain that the Victory was dedicated at Samothrace by Demetrius soon after the naval battle with Ptolemy and that the commemorative coins borrowed their design directly from the statue. Thus we get a date for the statue, and, what is more, clear evidence as to how it should be restored. The goddess held a trumpet to her lips with her right hand and in her left carried a support such as was used for the erection of a trophy. The ship upon which she has just alighted is conceived as under way, and the fresh breeze blows her garments backward in tumultuous folds. Compared with the Vic- tory of Paeonius (Figs. 143, 144) this figure seems more impetuous and imposing. That leaves us calm ; this elates us with the sense of onward motion against the salt sea air. Yet there is nothing unduly sensational about this work. It exhibits a magnificent idea, mag- nificently rendered. From this point on no attempt will be made to pre- serve a chronological order, but the principal classes of sculpture belonging to the Hellenistic period will be illustrated, each by two or three examples. Religious sculpture may be put first. Here the chief place belongs to the Aphrodite of Melos, called the Venus of Milo (Fig. 173). This statue was found by accident in 1820 on the island of Melos (Milo) near the site of the ancient city. According to the best evidence available, it was lying in the neighborhood of its original pedestal, in a niche of some building. Near it were found a piece of an upper left arm and a left hand holding an apple ; of these two fragments the former certainly and perhaps the latter belong to the statue. The prize was bought by M. de Riviere, French ambassador at Con- 250 A History of Greek Art. FIG. 173. THE APHRODITE OF MELOS. Paris, Louvre. stantinople, and pre- sented by him to the French king, Louis XVIII. The same vessel which conveyed it to France brought some other marble fragments from Melos, including a piece of an inscribed statue-base with an artist's inscrip- tion in characters of the second century B. C. or later. A draw- ing exists of this frag- ment, but the object itself has disappeared, and in spite of much acute argumentation it remains uncertain whether it did or did not form a part of the basis of the Aphrodite. Still greater uncer- tainty prevails as to the proper restoration of the statue, and no one of the many sugges- tions that have been made is free from diffi- culties. It seems probable, as has re- cently been set forth with great force and The Hellenistic Period of Greek Sculpture. 251 clearness by Professor Furtwangler,* that the figure is an adaptation from an Aphrodite of the fourth century, who rests her left foot upon a helmet and, holding a shield on her left thigh, looks at her own reflection. On this view the difficulty of explaining the attitude of the Aphrodite of Melos arises from the fact that the motive was created for an entirely different purpose and is not altogether appropriate to the present one, what- ever precisely that may be. It has seemed necessary, in the case of a statue of so much importance, to touch upon these learned perplex- ities ; but let them not greatly trouble the reader or turn him aside from enjoying the superb qualities of the work. One of the Aphrodites of Scopas or Praxiteles, if we had it in the original, would perhaps reveal to us a still diviner beauty. As it is, this is the worthiest ex- isting embodiment of the goddess of Love. The ideal is chaste and noble, echoing the sentiment of the fourth century at its best ; and the execution is worthy of a work which is in some sense a Greek original. The Apollo of the 'Belvedere (Fig. 174), on the other hand, is only a copy of a bronze original. The principal restorations are the left hand and the right fore-arm and hand. The most natural explanation of the god's atti- tude is that he held a bow in his left hand and has just let fly an arrow against some foe. His figure is slender, according to the fashion which prevailed from the middle of the fourth century onward, and he moves over the ground with marvelous lightness. His appear- ance has an effect of almost dandified elegance, and critics to-day cannot feel the reverent raptures which this statue used to evoke. Yet still the Apollo of the Belve- dere remains a radiant apparition. An attempt has re- *" Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture," pages 384^. 252 A History of Greek Art. cently been made to promote the figure, or rather its original, to the middle of the fourth century. As a specimen of the portrait-sculpture of the Helle- nistic period I have selected the seated statue of Posidip- pus (Fig. 175), an Athenian dramatist of the so-called New Comedy, who flourished in the early part of the third century. The preservation of the statue is extraordinary ; there is nothing modern about it except the thumb of the left hand. 1 1 produces strongly the im- pression of being an original work and also of being a speaking like- ness. It may have been mod- eled in the actual presence of the subject, but in that case the name on the front of the plinth was doubt- less inscribed later, when the figure was removed from its pedestal and taken to Rome. Posidippus is clean- shaven, according to the fashion that came in about the FIG. 174. THE APOLLO OF THE BELVEDERE. Rome, Vatican Museum. FIG. ITS Posmippus. Rome, Vatican Museum 254 A History of Greek Art. time of Alexander. There is a companion statue of equal merit, which commonly goes by the name of Me- nander. The two men are strongly contrasted with one another by the sculptor in features, expression, and bod- ily carriage. Both stat- ues show, as do many others of the period, how mistaken it would be to form our idea of the actual appearance of the Greeks -from the purely ideal creations of Greek sculpture. Besides real portraits, imaginary portraits of great excellence were produced in the Helle- nistic period. Fig. 176 is a good specimen of these. Only the head is antique, and there are some restorations, in- cluding the nose. This is one of a considerable number of heads which reproduce an ideal por- trait of Homer, con- ceived as a blind old man. The marks of age and blind- ness are rendered with great fidelity. There is a variant type of this head which is much more suggestive of poetical inspiration. Portraiture, of course, did not confine itself to men of refinement and intellect. As an extreme example of what was possible in the opposite direction nothing could FIG. 176. HEAD OF HOMER. Naples. The Hellenistic Period of Greek Sculpture. 255 be better than the original bronze statue shown in Fig. 177. It was found in Rome in 1885, and is essentially complete, except for the missing eyeballs ; the seat is new. The statue represents a naked boxer of herculean frame, his hands armed with the ccestus or boxing- gloves made of leather. The man is evidently a profes- sional ' ' bruiser ' ' of the lowest type. He is just resting after an encounter, and no detail is spared to bring out the nature of his oc- cupation. Swollen ears were the con- ventional mark of the boxer at all periods, but here the effect is still further enhanced by scratches and drops of blood . Moreover, the nose and cheeks bear evi- dence of having been badly ' ' punished, ' ' and the moustache is clotted with blood. From top to toe the statue exhibits the highest grade of technical skill. One would like very much to know what was the original purpose of the work. It may have been a votive statue, dedicated by a victorious boxer at Olympia or elsewhere. A bronze head of similar brutal- ity found at Olympia bears witness that the refined stat- ues of athletes produced in the best period of Greek art FIG. 177. SEATED BOXER. Rome, Museo delle Terme. 256 A History of Greek Art. and set up in that precinct were forced at a later day to accept such low companionship. Or it may be that this boxer is not an actual person at all, and that the statue belongs to the domain of genre. In either case it testi- fies to the coarse taste of the age. By genre sculpture is meant sculpture which deals with incidents or situations illustrative of every-day life. The conditions of the great age, although they per- m i 1 1 e d a genre-like treatment in votive sculptures and in grave-reliefs (cf. Fig. 134), offered few or no occasions for works of pure genre, whose sole purpose is to gratify the spectator. In the Hellenistic period, however, such works became plentiful. Fig. 1 78 gives a good speci- men. A boy of four or five is struggling in play with a goose and is triumphant. The composition of the group is admirable, and the zest of the sport is delightfully brought out. Observe too that the characteristic forms of infancy the large head, short legs, plump body and limbs are truthfully rendered (cf. page 222). There is a large number of representations in ancient sculpture of boys with geese or other aquatic birds ; among them are FIG. 178. BOY AND GOOSE. Rome, Capitoline Museum. The Hellenistic Period of Greek Sculpture. 257 at least three other copies of this same group. The original is thought to have been of bronze. Fig. 179 is genre again, and is as repulsive as the last example is charming. It is a drunken old woman, lean and wrinkled, seated on the ground and clasping her wine-jar between her knees, in a state of maudlin ecstasy. The head is modern, but another copy of the statue has the original head, which is of the same character as this. Ignobility of subject could go no further than in this work. It is a pleasure to turn to Fig. i 80, which in purity of spirit is worthy of the best time. The arms are modern, and their direction may not be quite correct, though it must be nearly so. This original bronze figure represents a boy in an attitude of prayer. It is impossible to decide whether the statue was votive or is simply a genre piece. Hellenistic art struck out a new path in a class of re- liefs of which Figs. 181 and 182 are examples. There are some restorations. A gulf separates these works FIG. 179. TIPSY OLD WOMAN. Rome, Capitoline Museum. 258 A History of Greek Art. from the friezes, of the Parthenon and the Mausoleum. Whereas relief -sculpture in the classical period abjured backgrounds and picturesque accessories, we find here a highly pictorial treatment. The subjects moreover are, in the instances chosen, of a character to which Greek sculpture before Alexan- der's time hardly offers a par- allel (yetcf. Fig. 87). In Fig. 181 we see a ewe giving suck to her lamb. Above, at the right, is a hut or stall, from whose open door a dog is just coming out ; at the left is an oak tree. In Fig. 182 a lioness crouches with her two cubs. Above is a sycamore tree, and to the right of it a group of objects which tell of the rustic worship of Bacchus. Each of the two reliefs decorated a foun- tain or something of the sort. In the one the overturned milk- jar served as a water- spout ; in the other the open mouth of one of the cubs an- swered the same purpose. Gen- erally speaking, the pictorial reliefs seem to have been used for the interior decoration of private and public buildings. FIG. iSo.-pRAYmc BOY. Berlin. g y t h e i r subjects many of them bear witness to that love of country life and that feeling for the charms of landscape which are the most attractive traits of the Hellenistic period. The Hellenistic Period of Greek Sculpture. 259 The kingdom of Pergamum in western Asia Minor was one of the smaller states formed out of Alexander's dominions. The city of Pergamum became a center of Greek learning second only to Alexandria in impor- tance. Moreover, under Attalus I. (241-197 B. C. ) and Eumenes II. (197-159 B. C. ) it developed an inde- pendent and powerful school of sculpture, of whose productions we fortunately possess nu- merous ex- amples. The most famous of these is the Dying Gaul or Galatian (Fig. i 83), once erroneously called the Dying Gladi- ator. Hordes of Gauls had invaded Asia Minor as early as 278 B. C, and, making their head- quarters in the interior, in the district afterwards known from them as Galatia, had become the terror and the scourge of the whole region. Attalus I. early in his reign gained an important victory over these fierce tribes, and this victory was commemorated by extensive groups of sculpture both at Pergamum and at Athens. The figure of the Dying Gaul belongs to this series. The statue FIG. 181. HELLENISTIC RELIEF. Vienna. (From Overbeck, "Geschichte der griechischen Plastik," Fig. 209 a.) 260 A History of Greek Art. was in the possession of Cardinal Ludovisi as early as 1633, along with a group closely allied in style, repre- senting a Gaul and his wife, but nothing is certainly known as to the time and place of its discovery. The restorations are said to be : the tip of the nose, the left knee-pan, the toes, and the part of the plinth on which the right arm rests,* together with the objects on it. That the man represented is not a Greek is evident from the large hands and feet, the coarse skin, the un-Greek char- acter of the head (Fig. 184). That he is a Gaul is proved by sev- eral points of agreement with what is known from literary sources of the Gallic peculiari- ties the moustache worn with shaven cheeks and chin, the stiff, pomaded hair growing low in the neck, the twisted collar or torque. He has been mortally wounded in battle the wound is on the right side and sinks with drooping head upon his shield and broken battle-horn. His death-struggle, though clearly marked, is not made FIG. 182. HELLENISTIC RELIEF. Vienna. (From Overbeck, "Geschichte der griechischen Plastik," Fig. 209 b.) * Helbig, " Guide to the Public Collections of Classical Antiquities in ," Vol. I., No. 533. Rome The Hellenistic Period of Greek Sculpture. 261 violent or repulsive. With savage heroism he ' ' con- sents to death, and conquers agony."* Here, then, a powerful realism is united to a tragic idea, and amid all vicissitudes of taste this work has never ceased to com- mand a profound admiration. Our knowledge of Pergamene art has recently re- ceived a great extension, in consequence of excavations FIG. 183. DYING GAUL. Rome, Capitoline Museum. carried on in 1878-86 upon the acropolis of Pergamum in the interest of the Royal Museum- of Berlin. Here were found the remains of numerous buildings, including an immense altar, or rather altar-platform, which was per- haps the structure referred to in Revelation II. 13, as "Satan's throne." This platform, a work of great architectural magnificence, was built under Eumenes II. Its exterior was decorated with a sculptured frieze, 7^ * Byron, "Childe Harold," IV., 140. 262 A History of Greek Art feet in height and something like 400 feet in total length. The fragments of this great frieze which were found in the course of the German excavations have been pieced together with infinite patience and ingenuity and amount to by far the greater part of the whole. The subject is the gigantomachy, i. e. , the battle between the gods and the rebellious sons of earth (cf. page 134). Fig. 185 shows the most important group of the whole composition. Here Zeus, recognizable by the thunderbolt in his outstretched right hand and the aegis upon his left arm, is pitted against three antago- nists. Two of the three are already dis- abled. The one at the left, a youthful giant of human form, has sunk to earth, pierced through the left thigh with a FIG. I84.-HEAD OF DYING GAUL. huge, flaming thunderbolt. The second, also youthful and human, has fallen upon his knees in front of Zeus and presses his left hand convulsively to a wound (?) in his right shoulder. The third still fights desperately. This is a bearded giant, with animal ears and with legs that pass into long snaky bodies. Around his left arm is wrapped The Hellenistic Period of Greek Sculpture. 263 the skin of some animal ; with his right hand (now missing) he is about to hurl some missile ; the left snake, whose head may be seen just above the giant's left shoulder, is contending, but in vain, with an eagle, the bird of Zeus. Fig. 1 86 adjoins Fig 185 on the right of the latter.* Here we have a group in which Athena is the central figure. The goddess, grasping her antagonist by the FIG. 185. GROUP FROM THE ALTAR OF PERGAMUM. Berlin. hair, sweeps to right. The youthful giant has great wings, but is otherwise purely human in form. A ser- pent, attendant of Athena, strikes its fangs into the giant's right breast. In front of Athena, the Earth- goddess, mother of the giants, half emerging from the ground, pleads for mercy. Above, Victory wings her way to the scene to place a crown upon Athena's head. If we compare the Pergamene altar-frieze with scenes of combat from the best period of Greek art, say with * Fig. 186 is more reduced in scale, so that the slabs incorrectly appear to be of unequal height. 264 A History of Greek Art. the metopes of the Parthenon or the best preserved frieze of the Mausoleum, we see how much more complicated and confused in composition and how much more violent in spirit is this later work. Yet, though we miss the " noble simplicity " of the great age, we cannot fail to be impressed with the Titanic energy which surges through this stupendous composition. The "decline" of Greek art, if we are to use that term, cannot be taken to imply the exhaustion of artistic vitality. FIG. 186. GROUP FROM THE ALTAR OF PERGAMUM. Berlin. The existence of a flourishing school of sculpture at Rhodes during the Hellenistic period is attested by our literary sources, as well as by artists' inscriptions found on the spot. Of the actual productions of that school we possess only the group of Laocoon and his sons (Fig. 187). This was found in Rome in 1506, on the site of the palace of Titus. The principal modern parts are : the right arm of Laocoon with the adjacent parts of the snake, the right arm of the younger son with the coil of the snake around it, and the right hand and wrist of the older son. These restorations are bad. The right arm of Laocoon should be bent so as to bring the FIG. 187. LAOCOON AND nis SONS. Rome, Vatican Museum. 265 266 A History of Greek Art. hand behind the head, and the right hand of the younger son should fall limply backward. Laocoon was a Trojan priest who, having committed grievous sin, was visited with a fearful punishment. On a certain occasion when he was engaged with his two sons in performing sacrifice, they were attacked by a pair of huge serpents, miraculously sent, and died a miserable death. The sculptors for the group, accord- ing to Pliny, was the joint work of three Rhodian artists have put before us the moving spectacle of this doom. Laocoon, his body convulsed and his face dis- torted by the torture of poison, his mouth open for a groan or a cry, has sunk upon the altar and struggles in the agony of death. The younger son is already past resistance ; his left hand lies feebly on the head of the snake that bites him and the last breath escapes his lips. The older son, not yet bitten, but probably not destined to escape, strives to free himself from the coil about his ankle and at the same time looks with sympathetic horror upon his father's sufferings. No work of sculpture of ancient or modern times has given rise to such an extensive literature as the Lao- coon. None has been more lauded and more blamed. Hawthorne ' ' felt the Laocoon very powerfully, though very quietly ; an immortal agony, with a strange calm- ness diffused through it, so that it resembles the vast rage of the sea, calm on account of its immensity."* Ruskin, on the other hand, thinks ' ' that no group has exercised so pernicious an influence on art as this ; a subject ill chosen, meanly conceived, and unnaturally treated, recommended to imitation by subtleties of ex- ecution and accumulation of technical knowledge, "f * " Italian Note-books," under date of March 10, 1858. t " Modern Painters," Part II, II, Chap. III. The Hellenistic Period of Greek Sculpture. 267 Of the two verdicts the latter is surely much nearer the truth. The calmness which Hawthorne thought he saw in the Laocoon is not there ; there is only a terrible tor- ment. Battle, wounds, and death were staple themes of Greek sculpture from first to last ; but nowhere else is the representation of physical suffering, pure and simple, so forced upon us, so made the ' ' be-all and end-all" of a Greek work. As for the date of the group, opinion still varies considerably. The probabili- ties seem to point to a date not far removed from that of the Pergamene altar ; /. e. , to the first half of the second century B.C. Macedonia and Greece became a Roman province in 146 B. C. ; the kingdom of Pergamum in 133 B. C. These political changes, it is true, made no immediate difference to the cause of art. Greek sculpture went on, presently transferring its chief seat to Rome, as the most favorable place of patronage. What is called Ro- man sculpture is, for the most part, simply Greek sculp- ture under Roman rule. But in the Roman period we find no great, creative epoch of art history ; moreover, the tendencies of the times have already received con- siderable illustration. At this point, therefore, we may break off this sketch. CHAPTER XI. GREEK PAINTING. THE art of painting was in as high esteem in Greece as the art of sculpture and, if we may believe the testi- mony of Greek and Roman writers, achieved results as important and admirable. But the works of the great Greek painters have utterly perished, and imagination, though guided by ancient descriptions and by such painted designs as have come down to us, can restore them but dimly and doubtfully. The subject may there- fore here be dismissed with comparative brevity. In default of pictures by the great Greek masters, an especial interest attaches to the work of humbler crafts- men of the brush. One class of such work exists in abundance the painted decorations upon earthenware vases. Tens of thousands of these vases have been brought to light from tombs and sanctuaries on Greek and Italian sites and the number is constantly increas- ing. Thanks to the indestructible character of pottery, the designs are often intact. Now the materials and methods employed by the vase-painters and the spaces at their disposal were very different from those of mural or easel paintings. Consequently inferences must not be hastily drawn from designs upon vases as to the com- position and coloring of the great masterpieces. But the best of the vase-painters, especially in the early fifth century, were men of remarkable talent, and all of them were influenced by the general artistic tendencies of their respective periods. Their work, therefore, con- 268 Greek Painting, 269 tributes an important element to our knowledge of Greek art history. Having touched in Chapter II. upon the earlier styles FIG. 188. THE FRANCOIS VASE. Florence, Archaeological Museum. of Greek pottery, I begin here with a vase of Attic manufacture, decorated, as an inscription on it shows, by Clitias, but commonly called from its finder the Francois vase (Fig. 188). It may be assigned to the 270 A History of Greek Art. first half of the sixth century, and probably to some- where near the beginning of that period. It is an early specimen of the class of black-figured vases, as they are called. The propriety of the name is obvious from the illustration. The objects represented were painted in black varnish upon the reddish clay, and the vase was then fired. Subsequently anatomical details, patterns of garments, and so on were indicated by means of lines cut through the varnish with a sharp instrument. Moreover, the exposed parts of the female figures faces, hands, arms, and feet were covered with white paint, this being the regular method in the black-figured style of distinguishing the flesh of female from that of male figures. The decoration of the Francois vase is arranged in horizontal bands or zones. The subjects are almost FIG. 189. DETAIL FROM THE FRANCOIS VASE. (From the Wiener Vorlegeblatter , 1888, PI. II.) wholly legendary and the vase is therefore a perfect mine of information for the student of Greek mythology. Our present interest, however, is rather in the character of the drawing. This may be better judged from Fig. 189, which is taken from the zone encircling the middle of the vase. The subject is the wedding of the mortal, Peleus, to the sea-goddess, Thetis, the wedding whose Greek Painting. 271 issue was Achilles, the great hero of the Iliad. To this ceremony came gods and goddesses and other super- natural beings. Our illustration shows Dionysus (Bac- chus), god of wine, with a wine-jar on his shoulder and what is meant for a vine-branch above him. Behind him walk three female figures, who are the personified Seasons. Last comes a group consisting of two Muses and a four-horse chariot bearing Zeus, the chief of the gods, and Hera, his wife. The principle of isocephaly is observed on the vase as in a frieze of relief-sculpture (page 145). The figures are almost all drawn in profile, though the body is often shown more nearly from the front, e. g. , in the case of the Seasons, and the eyes are always drawn as in front view. Out of the great multi- tude of figures on the vase there are only four in which the artist has shown the full face. Two of these are intentionally ugly Gorgons on the handles ; the two others come within the limits of our specimen illustra- tion. If Dionysus here appears almost like a caricature, that is only because the decorator is so little accustomed to drawing the face in front view. There are other interesting analogies between the designs on the vase and contemporary reliefs. For example, the bodies, when not disguised by garments, show an unnatural smallness at the waist, the feet of walking figures are planted flat on the ground, and there are cases in which the body and neck are so twisted that the face is turned in exactly the opposite direction to the feet. On the whole, Clitias shows rather more skill than a contempo- rary sculptor, probably because of the two arts that of the vase-painter had been the longer cultivated. The black-figured ware continued to be produced in Attica through the sixth century and on into the fifth. Fig. 190 gives a specimen of the work of an interesting 272 A History of Greek Art. vase-painter in this style, Execias by name, who prob- ably belongs about the middle of the sixth century. The subject is Achilles slaying in battle the Amazon queen, Penthesilea. - The drawing of Execias is distin- guished by an altogether unusual care and minuteness of detail, and if the whole body of his work, as known to FIG. 190. DESIGN FROM AN AMPHORA OF EXECIAS. London, British Museum. (From the Wiener Vorlegebldtter, 1888, PI. VI.) us from several signed vases, could be here presented, it would be easily seen that his proficiency was well in advance of that of Clitias. Obvious archaisms, how- ever, remain. Especially noticeable is the unnatural twisting of the bodies. A minor point of interest is afforded by the Amazon's shield, which the artist has not succeeded in rendering truthfully in side view. Greek Painting. 273 That is a rather difficult problem in perspective, which was not solved until after many experiments. Some time before the end of the sixth century, per- haps as early as 540, a new method of decorating pottery was invented in Attica. The principal coloring matter used continued to be the lustrous black varnish ; but instead of filling in the outlines of the figures with black, the decorator, after outlining the figures by means of a broad stroke of the brush, covered with black the spaces between the figures, leaving the figures themselves in the color of the clay. Vases thus deco- rated are called "red-figured." In this style incised lines ceased to be used, and details were rendered chiefly by mpans of the black varnish or, for certain purposes, of the same material diluted till it became of a reddish hue. The red-figured and black-figured styles coexisted for perhaps half a century, but the new style ultimately drove the old one out of the market. The development of the new style was achieved by men of talent, several of whom fairly deserve to be called artists. Such an one was Euphronius, whose long career as a potter covered some fifty years, beginning at the beginning of the fifth century or a little earlier. Fig. 191 gives the design upon the outside of a cylix (a broad, shallow cup, shaped like a large saucer, with two handles and a foot), which bears his signature. Its date is about 480, and it is thus approximately contem- porary with the latest of the archaic statues of the Athenian Acropolis (pages igiyi ). On one side we have one of the old stock subjects of the vase-painters, treated with unapproached vivacity and humor. Among the labors of Heracles, imposed upon him by his task- master, Eurystheus, was the capturing of a certain destructive wild boar of Arcadia and the bringing of the 274 A History of Greek Art. creature alive to Mycenae. In the picture, Heracles is returning with the squealing boar on his shoulder. The cowardly Eurystheus has taken refuge in a huge earthen- ware jar sunk in the ground, but Heracles, pretending to be unaware of this fact, makes as though he would deposit his burden in the jar. The agitated man and FIG. 191. DESIGN FROM A CYLIX OF EUPHRONIUS. London, British Museum. (From the Wiener Vorlegeblatter, Series V., PI. VII.) woman to the right are probably the father and mother of Eurystheus. The scene on the other side of the cylix is supposed to illustrate an incident of the Trojan War : two warriors, starting out on an expedition, are met and stopped by the god Hermes. In each design Greek Painting. 275 the workmanship, which was necessarily rapid, is mar- velously precise and firm, and the attitudes are varied and telling. Euphronius belonged to a generation which was making great progress in the knowledge of anatomy and in the ability to pose figures naturally and FIG. 192. CYLIX. London, British Museum. expressively. It is interesting to note how close is the similarity in the method of treating drapery between the vases of this period and contemporary sculpture. The cylix shown in Fig. 192 is somewhat later, dating from about 460. The technique is here different from that just described, inasmuch as the design is painted in reddish brown upon a white ground. The subject is the goddess Aphrodite, riding upon a goose. The painter, some unnamed younger contemporary of 276 A History of Greek Art. Euphronius, has learned a freer manner of drawing. He gives to the eye in profile its proper form, and to the drapery a simple and natural fall. The subject does not call, like the last, for dramatic vigor, and the pre- eminent quality of the work is an exquisite purity and refinement of spirit. If we turn now from the humble art of vase-decora- tion to painting in the higher sense of the term, the first eminent name to meet us is that of Polygnotus, who was born on the island of Thasos near the Thracian coast. His artistic career, or at least the later part of it, fell in the "Transitional period" (480-450 B. C. ), so that he was a contemporary of the great sculptor Myron. He came to Athens at some unknown date after the Persian invasion of Greece (480 B. C. ) and there executed a number of important paintings. In fact, he is said to have received Athenian citizenship. He worked also at Delphi and at other places, after the ordinary manner of artists. Painting in this period, as practiced by Polygnotus and other great artists, was chiefly mural ; the painting of easel pictures seems to have been of quite secondary consequence. Thus the most famous works of Poly- gnotus adorned the inner faces of the walls of temples and stoas. The subjects of these great mural paintings were chiefly mythological. For example, the two com- positions of Polygnotus at Delphi, of which we possess an extremely detailed account in the pages of Pausanias, depicted the sack of Troy and the descent of Odysseus into Hades. But it is worth remarking, in view of the extreme rarity of historical subjects in Greek relief- sculpture, that in the Stoa Poicile (Painted Portico) of Athens, alongside of a Sack of Troy by Polygnotus and a Battle of Greeks and Amazons by his contemporary, Greek Painting. 277 Micon, there were two historical scenes, a Battle of Marathon and a Battle of CEnoe. In fact, historical battle-pieces were not rare among the Greeks at any period. As regards the style of Polygnotus we can glean a few interesting facts from our ancient authorities. His figures were not ranged on a single line, as in contem- porary bas-reliefs, but were placed at varying heights, se as to produce a somewhat complex composition. His palette contained only four colors, black, white, yellow, and red, but by mixing these he was enabled to secure a somewhat greater variety. He laid his colors on in "flat" tints, just as the Egyptian decorators did, making no attempt to render the gradations of color due to varying light and shade. His pictures were therefore rather colored drawings than genuine paintings, in our sense of the term. He often inscribed beside his figures their names, according to a common practice of the time. Yet this must not be taken as implying that he was unable to characterize his figures by purely artistic means. On the contrary, Polygnotus was preeminently skilled in expressing character, and it is recorded that he drew the face with a freedom which archaic art had not attained. In all probability his pictures are not to be thought of as having any depth of perspective ; that is to say, although he did not fail to suggest the nature of the ground on which his figures stood and the objects adjacent to them, it is not likely that he represented his figures at varying distances from the spectator or gave them a regular background. It is clear that Polygnotus was gifted with artistic genius of the first rank and that he exercised a powerful influence upon contemporaries and successors. Yet, alas ! in spite of all research and speculation, our 278 A History of Greek Art. knowledge of his work remains very shadowy. A single drawing from his hand would be worth more than all that has ever been written about him. But if one would like to dream what his art was like, cne may imagine it as combining with the dramatic power of Euphronius and the exquisite loveliness of the Aphrodite cup, Giotto's elevation of feeling and Michael Angelo's pro- fundity of thought. Another branch of painting which began to attain importance in the time of Polygnotus was scene-painting for theatrical performances. It may be, as has been conjectured, that the impulse toward a style of work in which a greater degree of illusion was aimed at and secured came from this branch of the art. We read, at any rate, that one Agatharchus, a scene-painter who flourished about the middle of the fifth century, wrote a treatise which stimulated two philosophers to an in- vestigation of the laws of perspective. The most important technical advance, however, is attributed to Apollodorus of Athens, a painter of easel pictures. He departed from the old method of color- ing in flat tints and introduced the practice of grading colors according to the play of light and shade. How successfully he managed this innovation we have no means of knowing ; probably very imperfectly. But the step was of the utmost significance. It meant the abandonment of mere colored drawing and the creation of the genuine art of painting. Two artists of the highest distinction now appear upon the scene. They are Zeuxis and Parrhasius. The rather vague remark of a Roman writer, that they both lived ' ' about the time of the Peloponnesian War ' ' (431-404 B. C. ) is as definite a statement as can safely be made about their date. Parrhasius was born at Greek Painting. 279 Ephesus, Zeuxis at some one or other of the numerous cities named Heraclea. Both traveled freely from place to place, after the usual fashion of Greek artists, and both naturally made their home for a time in Athens. Zeuxis availed himself of the innovation of Apollodorus and probably carried it farther. Indeed, he is credited by one Roman writer with being the founder of the new method. The strength of Parrhasius is said to have lain in subtlety of line, which would suggest that with him, as with Polygnotus, painting was essentially outline drawing. Yet he too can hardly have remained unaffected by the new chiaroscuro. Easel pictures now assumed a relative importance which they had not had a generation earlier. SonYe of these were placed in temples and such conformed in their subjects to the requirements of religious art, as understood in Greece. But many of the easel pictures by Zeuxis and his contemporaries can hardly have had any other destination than the private houses of wealthy connoisseurs. Moreover, we hear first in this period of mural painting as applied to domestic interiors. Alci- biades is said to have imprisoned a reluctant painter, Agatharchus (cf. page 278), in his house and to have forced him to decorate the walls. The result of this sort of private demand was what we have seen taking place a hundred years later in the case of sculpture, viz. : that artists became free to employ their talents on any subjects which would gratify the taste of patrons. For example, a painting by Zeuxis of which Lucian has left us a description illustrates what may be called mytho- logical genre. It represented a female Centaur giving suck to two offspring, with the father of the family in the background, amusing himself by swinging a lion's whelp above his head to scare his young. This was, no 280 A History of Greek Art. doubt, admirable in its way, and it would be narrow- minded to disparage it because it did not stand on the ethical level of Polygnotus's work. But painters did not always keep within the limits of what is innocent. No longer restrained by the conditions of monumental and religious art, they began to pander not merely to what is frivolous, but to what is vile in human nature. The great Parrhasius is reported by Pliny to have painted licentious little pictures, "refreshing himself" (says the writer) by this means after more serious labors. Thus at the same time that painting was making great tech- nical advances, its nobility of purpose was on the average declining. Timanthes seems to have been a younger contempo- rary of Zeuxis and Parrhasius. Perhaps his career fell chiefly after 400 B. C. The painting of his of which we hear the most represented the sacrifice of Iphigenia at Aulis. The one point about the picture to which all our accounts refer is the grief exhibited in varying degrees by the bystanders. The countenance of Calchas was sorrowful ; that of Ulysses still more so ; that of Menelaus displayed an intensity of distress which the painter could not outdo ; Agamemnon, therefore, was represented with his face covered by his mantle, his attitude alone suggesting the father's poignant anguish. The description is interesting as illustrating the atten- tion paid in this period to the expression of emotion. Timanthes was in spirit akin to Scopas. There is a Pompeian wall-painting of the sacrifice of Iphigenia, which represents Agamemnon with veiled head and which may be regarded, in that particular at least, as a remote echo of Timanthes' s famous picture. Sicyon, in the northeastern part of Peloponnesus a city already referred to as the home of the sculptor Greek Painting. 281 Lysippus was the seat of an important school of paint- ing in the fourth century. Toward the middle of the century the leading teacher of the art in that place was one Pamphilus. He secured the introduction of draw- ing into the elementary schools of Sicyon, and this new branch of education was gradually adopted in other Greek communities. A pupil of his, Pausias by name, is credited with raising the process of encaustic painting to a prominence which it had not enjoyed before. In this process the colors, mixed with wax, were applied to a wooden panel and then burned in by means of a hot iron held near. Thebes also, which attained to a short-lived impor- tance in the political world after the battle of Leuctra (371 B. C. ), developed a school of painting, which seems to have been in close touch with that of Athens. There were painters besides, who seem to have had no connection with any one of these centers of activity. The fourth century was the Golden Age of Greek painting, and the list of eminent names is as long and as distinguished for painting as for sculpture. The most famous of all was Apelles. He was a Greek of Asia Minor and received his early training at Ephe- sus. He then betook himself to Sicyon, in order to profit by the instruction of Pamphilus and by associa- tion with the other painters gathered there. It seems likely that his next move was to Pella, the capital of Macedon, then ruled over by Philip, the father of Alex- ander. At any rate, he entered into intimate relations with the young prince and painted numerous portraits of both father and son. Indeed, according to an often repeated story, Alexander, probably after his accession to the throne, conferred upon Apelles the exclusive privilege of painting his portrait, as upon Lysippus the 282 A History of Greek Art. exclusive privilege of representing him in bronze. Later, presumably when Alexander started on his eastern campaigns (334 B. C. ), Apelles returned to Asia Minor, but of course not even then to lead a settled life. He outlived Alexander, but we do not know by how much. Of his many portraits of the great conqueror four are specifically mentioned by our authorities. One of these represented the king as holding a thunderbolt, i. e. , in the guise of Zeus a fine piece of flattery. For this picture, which was placed in the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus, he is reported, though not on very good authority, to have received twenty talents in gold coin. It is impossible to make exact comparisons between ancient and modern prices, but the sum named would perhaps be in purchasing power as large as any modern painter ever received for a work of similar size.* It has been mentioned above that Apelles made a number of portraits of King Philip. He had also many sitters among the generals and associates of Alexander ; and he left at least one picture of himself. His portraits were famous for their truth of likeness, as we should expect of a great painter in this age. An allegorical painting by Apelles of Slander and Her Crew is interesting as an example of a class of works to which Lysippus's statue of Opportunity belonged (page 239). This picture contained ten figures, whereas most of his others of which we have any description con- tained only one figure each. His most famous work was an Aphrodite, originally placed in the Temple of Asclepius on the island of Cos. The goddess was represented, according to the Greek * Nicias, an Athenian painter and a contemporary of Apelles, is reported to have been offered by Ptolemy, the ruler of Egypt, sixty talents for a picture and to have refused the offer. Greek Painting. 283 myth of her birth, as rising from the sea, the upper part of her person being alone distinctly visible. The picture, from all that we can learn of it, seems to have been imbued with the same spirit of refinement and grace as Praxiteles' s statue of Aphrodite in the neighboring city of Cnidus. The Coans, after cherishing it for three hundred years, were forced to surrender it to the emperor Augustus for a price of a hundred talents, and it was removed to the Temple of Julius Caesar in Rome. By the time of Nero it had become so much injured that it had to be replaced by a copy. Protogenes was another painter whom even the slight- est sketch cannot afford to pass over in silence. He was born at Caunus in southwestern Asia Minor and flourished about the same time as Apelles. We read of his conversing with the philosopher Aristotle (died 322 B. C. ), of whose mother he painted a portrait, and of his being engaged on his most famous work, a picture of a Rhodian hero, at the time of the siege of Rhodes by Demetrius (304 B. C. ). He was an extremely painstaking artist, inclined to excessive elaboration in his work. Apelles, who is always represented as of amiable and generous character, is reported as saying that Protogenes was his equal or superior in every point but one, the one inferiority of Protogenes being that he did not know when to stop. According to another anecdote Apelles, while profoundly impressed by Proto- genes' s masterpiece, the Rhodian hero above referred to, pronounced it lacking in that quality of grace which was his own most eminent merit.* There are still other anecdotes, which give an entertaining idea of the friendly rivalry between these two masters, but which do not help us much in imagining their artistic qualities. * Plutarch, " Life of Demetrius," \ 22. 284 A History of Greek Art. As regards technique, it seems likely that both of them practiced principally ' ' tempera ' ' painting, in which the colors are mixed with yolk of eggs or some other sticky non-unctuous medium.* Both Apelles and Protogenes are said to have written technical treatises on the painter's art. There being nothing extant which would properly illustrate the methods and the styles of the great artists in color, the best substitute that we have from about their period is an Etruscan sarcophagus, found near Corneto in 1869. The material is "alabaster or a marble closely resembling alabaster. " It is ornamented on all four sides by paintings executed in tempera representing a battle of Greeks and Amazons. " In the flesh tints the difference of the sexes is strongly marked, the flesh of the fighting Greeks being a tawny red, while that of the Amazons is very fair. For each sex two tints only are used in the shading and modeling of the flesh. . . . Hair and eyes are for the most part a purplish brown ; garments mainly reddish brown, whitish grey, or pale lilac and light blue. Horses are uniformly a greyish white, shaded with a fuller tint of grey ; their eyes always blue. There are two colors of metal, light blue for swords, spear-heads, and the inner faces of shields, golden yellow for helmets, greaves, reins, and handles of shields, girdles, and chain ornaments. ' ' Our illustration (Fig. 193) is taken from the middle of one of the long sides of the sarcophagus. It repre- sents a mounted Amazon in front of a fully armed foot- soldier, upon whom she turns to deliver a blow with her sword. ' ' Every reader will be struck by the beauty and spirit of the Amazon, alike in her action and her * Oil painting was unknown in ancient times. Greek Painting. 285 facial expression. The type of head, broad, bold, and powerful, and at the same time young and blooming, with the pathetic-indignant expression, is preserved with little falling off from the best age of Greek art. In spirit and expression almost equal to the Amazon is the horse she bestrides."* The Greek warrior is also admirable in attitude and expression, full of energy and determination. Although the paintings of this sarcophagus were FIG. 193. DETAIL FROM A PAINTED SARCOPHAGUS. Florence, Archaeological Museum. (From The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. IV., PI. XXXVI.) doubtless executed in Etruria, and probably by an Etruscan hand, they are in their style almost purely Greek. The work is assigned to the earlier half of the third century B. C. If an unknown craftsman was stim- ulated by Greek models to the production of paintings of such beauty and power, how magnificent must have been the achievements of the great masters of the brush ! *The quotations are from an article by Mr. Sidney Colvin in The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. IV., pages 354^". 286 A History of Greek Art. For examples of Greek portrait painting we are in- debted to Egypt, that country whose climate has pre- served so much that elsewhere would have perished. It will be remembered that Egypt, having been con- quered by Alexander, fell after his death to the lot of his general, Ptolemy, and continued to be ruled by Ptolemy's descend- ants until, in 30 B.C., it became a Roman province. During the period of Mace- donian rule Alexan- dria was the chief center of Greek cul- ture in the world, and Greeks and Greek civilization became established also in the interior of the coun- try ; nor did these Hellenizing influ- ences abate under Roman domination. To this late period, when Greek and Egyptian customs were largely amalga- mated, belongs a class of portrait heads which have been found in the Fayyum, chiefly within the last ten years. They are painted on panels of wood (or rarely on canvas), and were origi- nally attached to mummies. The embalmed body was FIG. 194. PORTRAIT OF A MAN, FROM THE FAYYUM. Greek Painting. 287 carefully wrapped in linen bandages and the portrait placed over the face and secured in position. These pictures are executed principally by the encaustic process, though some use was made also of tempera. The persons repre- sented appear to be of various races Greek, Egyptian, Hebrew, negro, and mixed ; perhaps the Greek type predom- inates in the speci- mens now known. At any rate, the artistic methods of the portraits seem to be purely Greek. As for their date, it is the prevailing opinion that they belong to the sec- ond century after Christ and later, though an attempt has been made to carry the best of them back to the second century B. C. The finest collection of these portraits is one acquired by a Viennese merchant, Herr Theodor Graf. They differ widely in artistic merit ; our illustrations show three of the best. Fig. 194 is a man in middle life, FIG. 195. PORTRAIT OF A GIRL, FROM THE FAYYUM. 288 A History of Greek Art. with irregular features, abundant, waving hair, and thin, straggling beard. One who has seen Watts' s picture of "The Prodigal Son" may remark in the lower part of this face a likeness to that. Fig. 195 is a charming girl, wear- ing a golden wreath of ivy-leaves about her hair and a string of great pearls about her neck. Her dark eyes look strangely large, as do those of all the women of the series ; probably the effect of eyes natur- ally large was height- ened, as nowadays in Egypt, by the prac- tice of blackening the edges of the eyelids. Fig. 196 is the most fascinating face of all, and it is artistically unsurpassed in the whole series. This and a portrait of an elderly man, not given here, are the masterpieces of the Graf collection. It is much too little to say of these two heads that they are the best examples of Greek painting that have come down to us. In spite of the great inferiority of the FIG. 196. PORTRAIT OF A YOUNG WOMAN, FROM THE FAYYUM. Greek Painting. 289 encaustic technique to that of oil painting, these pictures are not unworthy of comparison with the great portraits of modern times. The ancient wall-paintings found in and near Rome, but more especially in Pompeii, are also mostly Greek in character, so far as their best qualities are concerned. The best of them, while betraying deficient skill in per- spective, show such merits in coloring, such power of expression and such talent for composition, as to afford to the student a lively enjoyment and to intensify ten- fold his regret that Zeuxis and Parrhasius, Apelles and Protogenes, are and will remain to us nothing but names. SHORT LIST OF BOOKS RECOMMENDED FOR THE STUDY OF GREEK ART. I. GREEK ARCHITECTURE. F. von Reber : History of Ancient Art, translated by J. T. Clarke. New York, 1882. J. Durm : Die Baukunst der Griechen. 26. edition. Darmstadt, 1892. II. GREEK SCULPTURE. L. M. Mitchell : History of Ancient Sculpture. New York, 1883. Student's edition. J. Overbeck : Geschichte der griechischen Plastik. 4th edition. Leipzig, 1893-95. M. Collignon : Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque. Paris. Vol. I., 1892. Vol. II. announced for 1896. E. A. Gardner : A Handbook of Greek Sculpture. London and New York, 1896. W. Helbig : Guide to the Public Collections of Classical Antiquities in Rome, translated by J. F. and Findlay Muirhead. Leipzig, 1896. C. Friederichs and P. Wolters : Die Gipsabgiisse antiker Bildwerke (a catalogue of casts of Greek and Roman sculpture in the Berlin Museum). Berlin, 1885. E. Robinson : Catalogue of Casts of Greek and Roman Sculpture in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. Revised edition, 1896. 292 Books for the Study of Greek Art. L. E. Upcott : Introduction to Greek Sculpture. Ox- ford, 1887. III. GREEK PAINTING. A. Woltmann and K. Woermann : History of Ancient, Early Christian and Medieval Painting, Eng- lish translation edited by Sidney Colvin. New York, 1880. Student's edition. P. Girard : La Peinture Antique. Paris, 1892. INDEX. Abacus, 85. Abydos, temple at, 30, 31. Acroteria, 88, 123, 214. jEgina, sculptures from, 153 ff,; tem- ple at, 84. Agatharchus, 278, 279. Ageladas, 166. Agoracritus, 202. Alcamenes, 182. Alexander the Great, 235, 238, 239, 243, 281 ; portraits of, 24i/., 247. "Alexander" sarcophagus, 119, 120, 247. Amazons, 171, 208/1, 231 f., 272, 284/1 Amphiprostyle, 81. Anathemata, 123. Anta, 81,88, 98. Antenor, 149, 161. Apelles, 281 ff. Aphrodite, Anadyomene, by Apelles, 282/./ of Cnidus, by Praxiteles, 223; of Melos, 118, 249 ff. ; on a cylix, 275. Apollo, 125, I3i/., 135, i57/-> 165, 174/., 192, 225 ; of the Belvedere, 251 /./ Sauroctonos, 224. Apollodorus, 278. Apoxyomenos, 240. Arch, the, in architecture, 19, 30, 36, 49, 79- Archermus, 140, Architrave, 85, 96. Aristion, monument of, 146. Aristogiton, 124, 149, 160 ff. Artemis, 171, 192, 227. Athena, 150, 155, 171, 188 ff., 263 ; of the Parthenon, i86/. Athlete statues, 124, 126, 167, 206 ff.. 239 ff; 255- Bacchus, 271. Base, Ionic, 93, 96. Bassae, temple at, 101. Bee-hive tombs, 52 ff. Black-figured vases, 270. Boxer, seated statue of a, 255. Brick, baked, 35, 38, 78 ; sun-dried, 19, 24, 35, 38, 56, 78, i7- Bronze sculpture, 30, 44, 46, 120. Bryaxis, 230, 232. Bulls, Assyrian winged, 4i/./ in My- cenaean art, 57/., 67 ff. Calamis, 166. Calf-bearer, statue of, 135. Capital, 84 ; Corinthian, 103 ff.; Doric, 85, 92 /./ Egyptian forms of, 27 ff. ; Ionic, 94/., 97/., 102. Caryatides, 115, 200. Cella, 80. Centaurs, 174 ff., 190 ff., 279. Cephisodotus, 218. Channeling of columns, 25, 84,85, 93. Cheops, pyramid of, 19. Chiton, 139, 227 ; Doric, 177, 180, 186, 200 ; Ionic, 150. Chryselephantine statues, 122, 167, 185 206. Clamps, 79. Clay models, 118, 121, 231. Clitias, 269. Coffers, 89, 101. Color, applied to architecture, 105 ff.; applied to sculpture, 22, 23, 33, 44, 134, 139. M7, 148, 153, 220, 247. Column, Doric, 25, 84 /., 90 ff.; Egyptian forms of, 25, 27 ff.; Ionic, 93ff;' Mycenaean, 53. Colvin, quoted, 284/. Corinthian capital, lo^ff. Cornice, 87, 96. Corona, 87, 96. Cow, silver, from Mycenae, 64. Crepidoma, 84. Cresilas, 199. Critius, 162. Cyclopean masonry, so/. Cyma, 88, 95/. Dagger-blades, from Mycenae, 65, Demons, Assyrian, 42. Dentels, 96, 104. Diadumenos, 208. 293 294 Index. Diana of Gabii, 227. Dionysus, 22i/., 271. Dipylon vases, 73/X". Discobolus, by Myron, \ff]ff. Doric order, 84^". Doryphorus, by Polyclitus, 206 #., 222. Dowels, 79. Echinus, 85, 92. Eirene, by Cephisodotus, 2I7/. Elgin, Lord, 190. Entablature, 61, 84. Entasis, 85, 93. Erechtheum, 98/., v*)f. Eros, 245. Euphronius, 273. Execias, 272. Eye, in reliefs and paintings, 33, 40, 41, 143, 271, 276; in statues, 21, 23, 121, 131, 140, 143, 151, 181. Fluting of columns, 25, 84, 85, 93. Folds of drapery, in sculpture, 23, 33, 37, 40, 136, 138, I43/-, 177- Francois vase, 269 ff. Frieze, 84 ; Doric, 8s/.; Ionic, 96. Furtwangler, quoted, 169, 189, 251. Gaul, Dying, 259^. Gems, Mycenaean, 69. Genre painting, 279 ; sculpture, 256 f. Geometric vases, 73. Gigantomachy, 134, 262. Gladiator, Dying, so-called, 259^. Gold and ivory statues, 122, 167, 185, 206. Goose, Aphrodite on a, 275 ; group of boy and, 256. Grave-reliefs, 61, 124, 146, 202 ff. Group, the, in sculpture, 22, 164. Gudea, 36. Hair, in sculpture, 121, 129, 131, 140, 143, 147, W 151, 152, 158, 165, 175, l8l, 222/. Harmodius, 124, 149, 160 ff. " Harpy" tomb, 144. Hawk's-beak molding, 88/. Hawthorne, quoted, 225, 266. Hegeso, monument of, 202. Hera, 171, 206, 271. Heracles, 133, 171, \-ftff., 247, 274. Hermes, 235, 274; by Praxiteles, 221 ff.; Moschophorus, so-called, 135. Homer, head of, 254. Horus, 31. Hypaethral question, 89. Hypostyle hall, 26/. " Idolino," the, 210/1 Inscriptions upon statues or their ped- estals, 113.^, 128, 135, 140, 147, 149. 2I3/-, 241,252. Ionic order, 93 ff. Isocephaly, 145, 193, 271. Karnak, temple at, 27. Lapiths, 174, 190 ff. Leochares, 230, 232. Lime-mortar, 78. Lion, the, in Mycenaean art, 61, 66, 70. Lion Gate, the, 51, 61. Lions' heads, as water-spouts, 87. Lucian, quoted, 168. Luxor, temple at, 26. Lysippus, 238 ff. Marble sculpture, 118. Marsyas, 170, 226. Mastaba, the, 19. Mausoleum, 97, 215, 232/1 Meleager, 217. Menander, 254. Metope, 87. Muses, 226, 271. Mutule, 87. Mycenae, 47, 58, 72. Mycenaean vases, 70. Myron, i(6ff. Nesiotes, 162. Newton, Sir C. T., quoted, 158. Nicandra, statue dedicated by, 128. Nicias, 220, 282. Nudity in Greek art, 60, 125, 155, 223. Obelisks, 26. Opisthodomos, 81. Orchomenus, 54. Order, meaning of, in architecture, 83. " Orientalizing" pottery, 76. Orpheus relief, 204 ./f. Paeonius, 182, 212. Painting, Assyrian, 45 ; Egyptian, 33/.; Greek, if&ff.; Mycenaean, 57 ff. Palmette, 94. Pamphilus, 281. Parian marble, 77, 118. Parrhasius, 278^. Parthenon, 65, 90, 108, no, Index. 295 Pater, quoted, 158 /. Pausanias, quoted, 120, iSi/., 194, 212, 213, 239. Pausias, 281. Pediment, 87. Pentathlon, 168, 206. Pentelic marble, 77, 118. Pergamum, sculptures from, 259 ff. Pericles, 184, 199. Peripteral, 81. Peristyle, 81. Phidias, 184^., 238. Pictorial reliefs, 258. Pliny, quoted, 166, 220, 223, 232, 239, 266. Plutarch, quoted, 184. Plutus, 21 if. Polychromy, of architecture, 105 ff.; of sculpture, 22, 23, 33, 44, 134, 139, 147, 148, 153, 220, 247. Polyclitus, 206 ff., 222, 240. Polygnotus, 276 ff. Polygonal masonry, 51. Poros, 78, 133, 138. Portraiture, 23, 34/., 126, 169 /., 199, 204, 235^"., 239, 242, 28i/., 286^". Posidippus, 252. Posidon, 192. Praying boy, 257. Praxiteles, 115, 183, 21% ff. Priene, temple at, 80, 82, 93, 101. Pronaos, 81. Propylaea, 102, 105, 109. Prostyle, 81. Proto-Doric columns, 25. Protogenes, 283. Pylon, 26. Pyramids, iSf. Quintilian, quoted, 206. Ra-em-ka, 21. Ra-nofer, 21. Red-figured vases, 273. Repoussi work, 63, 65, 67, 122. Rhoecus, 121. Ruskin, quoted, 126, 266. Sarcophagus, "Alexander," 120, 247 ; Amazon, 284; of the "Mourning Women," 234. Satyrs, 170, 224/. Schliemann, 47. Scopas, 101, 215 ff., 22% ff. Scribe, cross-legged, 22. Selinus, metopes from, lyjff., I7I/". Serdab, 20, 21. Seti I., bas-relief of, 32. Sheikh-el-Beled, 20. Silanion, 230 Sima, 87, 96. Sophocles, v&ff. Sphinx, i6/., 26. "Spinario," the, 182. Stoa, 105. Stylobate, 84. Tanagra figurines, 2447". Tegea, sculptures from, 2i6_f. Tello, sculptures from, 36 ff. Temples, Egyptian, 25 ff.; Greek, nff. Templum in antis, 81. Tenea, " Apollo" of, 132. Terra-cotta figurines, 123. Theaters, Greek, in/. Theodoras, 121. Thera, "Apollo " of, 129 ff. Timanthes, 280. Timotheus, 230, 231, 232. Tiryns, 47, 48, 56. Tombs, Egyptian, 19, 24. "Treasuries," 47, 52. Triglyph, 86. Typhon, 133. Vaphio, gold cups from, 67 ff. Vault, the, in architecture, 30, 49, 53. Venus of Milo, 118, 249^7". "Vesta," Giustiniani, 182. Victory, 139 /., 187,202, 212 ff., 247 ff., 263 ; Wingless, Temple of, 101, 201. Vitruvius, quoted, 107, 200, 232. Votive sculptures, 123, 128, 136, iy)f.; i&ff., 2i2ff., 247./X: Winckelmann, quoted, 117, 244. Wood, use of, in architecture, 57, 107 ; in sculpture, 20, 117. Xoana, 117. Zeus, 237, 239, 262, 271 ; by Phidias, i8s/./ Temple of, at Olympia, Zeuxis, 278^. m /-\ /\ ''' '''' '