a handbook of greek sculpture 1000002121

8/13/2019 A Handbook of Greek Sculpture 1000002121

1/589


2/589


3/589


4/589
http://www.forgottenbooks.org/redirect.php?where=fb&pibn=1000002121http://www.forgottenbooks.org/redirect.php?where=it&pibn=1000002121http://www.forgottenbooks.org/redirect.php?where=es&pibn=1000002121http://www.forgottenbooks.org/redirect.php?where=fr&pibn=1000002121http://www.forgottenbooks.org/redirect.php?where=de&pibn=1000002121http://www.forgottenbooks.org/redirect.php?where=co.uk&pibn=1000002121http://www.forgottenbooks.org/redirect.php?where=com&pibn=1000002121


5/589


6/589


7/589

I^antiljooks of

^rci}aeoloQ2 ^^ti ^ntiquitte;s{

A HANDBOOK

OF

GREEK SCULPTURE


8/589


9/589

A HANDBOOK

i/K {y\, / *o^v

OF

GREEK SCULPTUEE

BY

ERNEST ARTHUR GARDNER, M.A. 'LATE FELLOW OF OONVILLE AND CAIUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, AND FORMERLY

DIRECTOR OF THE BRITISH SCHOOL OF ARCHAEOLOGY AT ATHENS ;YATES PROFESSOR OP ARCHAEOLOGY IN UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE, LONDON

?t.\.

ilontionMACMILLAN AND CO., Limited

NEW YORK : THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

1897

AU rightsreserved


10/589

NJ3

v.


11/589

PREFACE

Although there are several histories of Greek sculpture, theneed of a handbook on a smaller scale and of a somewhat dift'erent

scope is, I believe, generally felt. What is wanted is a generaloutline of our present knowledge of Greek sculpture, dis-inguishin

as clearly as possible the different schools andperiods, and giving typical instances to show the development ofeach. Accordingly, I have not in the present work made anyattempt at a complete or exhaustive treatment of the subject,but have selected from the great accumulation of available

examples only such as seem most useful in illustration. I havein particular attempted to confine myself to such facts ortheories as have already met with general acceptance among

archaeologists, or such as seem to rest uponevidence that

cannot easily be shaken by new discoveries or future contro-ersy.This principle has precluded the discussion of many

interesting problems that are still under dispute ; but in thecase of questions which, though undecided, are of too vital issuefor the history of sculpture to be altogether ignored, I haveendeavoured to state as briefly as possible the different tenableviews, and to base no further inferences upon the acceptance of

any of them. In this way the student will be provided with aframework into which he can easily fit all the knowledge thathe may acquire from subsequent reading or observation ; and at


12/589

vi A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE

the same time he will not find that he has anything to unlearnwhen he becomes acquaintedwith more facts or newer theories.

AVere the writer of such a book as this to cite all theauthorities who have contributed,directlyor indirectly,o thework he has produced,his prefaceand notes would be a merepatchwork of references and quotations. I have endeavouredas far as possibleto give my own impressionsdirectly,sderived both from literaryuthorities and from the monumentsthemselves,and have tried as a generalrule to avoid directquotationfrom modern writers. Wherever I have consciouslyborrowed an originaliew propounded by a predecessor,nd notyet adopted as common property, I have made an acknowledg-ent

in the text or in a note ; but a reference of this sort mayhave been accidentallyomitted in some instances where itsinsertion would have been justor courteous, and I can onlytrustthat in such a case those who have most rightto complainwillalso be most disposedto leniencyby their own experienceofthe difficultiesof a task that must partaketo a great extent ofthe nature of a compilation.

But a more generalacknowledgment is due at once tosuch works as Professor von Brunn's Geschichte der griechischenKunstler and his Griechische Kunstgeschichte,rofessor Overbeck'sGeschichte der griechischenlastik,Mr. A. S. Murray'sHistoryofGreek Sculpture,rs. Mitchell's Historyof Ancient Sculpture,ndM. Collignon'sistoire de la sculpturerecque. Any one whonow writes on Greek sculptureust owe to some or all of thesethe foundation of his knowledge. If I do not constantlyeferto them, it isonlybecause their accessibilitynd their systematictreatment of the subject make it easy for the student to con-ult

them upon any matter which he wishes to follow out inmore detail than is allowed by the scope of a handbook. Thecataloguesof the various museums in which the remains of


13/589


14/589

vm A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE

tion, but also for his help and encouragement throughout thework.

The present volume contains the introduction and thehistory of Greek sculpture down to the time of Phidias. Thesecond part will comprise the rest of Chapter III. (the fifthcentury), Chapter IV. (the fourth century), Chapter V. (Hellenisticsculpture), Chapter VI. (Graeco- Roman sculpture), and fullindices to the whole work. It is hoped that the rest of thehandbook will be ready to appear in the course of the comingyear.

October 1895.


15/589


16/589


17/589

CONTENTS

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY.

LIST OF COMMONEST ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

NOTE

PAGE

xvii

XXI

xxiu

xxviu

INTKODUCTION

(a) Sources of our Knowledge Literature and Monuments.

1

1. Literary Sources......

1

(a) Direct Literary Sources....

1

(6) Indirect Literary Sources....

4

2. Monumental Sources. . .

^.

.4

(1) Originals. . ...

10

(2) Copies. . . . .

.

.11

(3) Imitations......

13

(b) Materials and Processes of Greek Sculpture. .

15

1. Wood........

15

2. Stone or Marble......

18

3. Metal ....... 234. Terra-cotta

. . . . . ..26

5. The Application of Colour to Sculpture'. .

28

6. The Use of Pointing from a Finished Model. .

32

(c) Sculpture : Decorative, Architectural, Free. .

35

{d) Chronological Division of the Subject. .

.42


18/589

xu A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE

CHAPTER I

EARLY INFLUENCES DECORATIVE ARTPAGE

1. LiMiT.s OF THE Subject ...... 452. Egypti.\x Akt

. . . . . . .-17

3. As.SYKiA r Art....... 48

4. Phoenician Aki.......

505. Asia Minou

.......52

6. Early Population of Greece . . . . .567. Civilisation of Mycenae

.

. ..57

8. ^t of Mycenae ...... 599. The Island Gems and Early Bronze Reliefs . . 62

10. Mythical Traditions : the Cyclopes, Dactyli, Telchines,etc. ........ 65

11. Art in Homer and He.siud ..... G612. Other Decorative Works

. . . . .7313. Daedalus

. . . . .-

..79

14. Early Temple Images and Offerings. .

.8115. Changes in Greece before 600 b.c. : Later Means of

Foreign Influence...... 84

16. Summary........ 87

CHAPTER n

the rise of greek sculpture (600-480 b.c.) ir. Character and Limits of the Pkuiod :

division .....18. Inherited and Borrowed Types

{(()Nondescript Draped Type, StandingJ{b)Draped Female Type, Standing(( )Nude Male Type, Standing(d) Male and Female Seated Type, Draped(e)Winged Figures .

19. Stories of Inventions and their Value20. Schools of Samos, Chios, Crete : Literary Evidence


19/589

CHAPTEE III

THE FIFTH CENTURY (480-400 B.C.)

29. The Persian Wars and their Results30. The Olympian Sculptures

214216


20/589

XIV A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE

31. Calamis.

32. Myron33. Pythagoras34. Phidias

.

35. Sculpture of the Parthenon36. Other Athenian Sculptures Theseum, Erechtheum

Temple of Wingless Victory, etc.37. Scholars of Phidias Agoraoritus, Colotes, Theocosmus

Alcamenes38. Scholars of Calamis and Myron, and other Attic Sculp

tors

39. Attic Influence outside Athens ; Phigalia40. polyclitus

.....

41. Scholars of Polyclitus42. Other Sculptors and Works of this Period43. Summary ......

PAGE232236244248267

294

304

313321324337341347

CHAPTER IV

THE FOURTH CENTURY (400-320 B.C.)


21/589

CONTENTS XV

CHAPTEE V

the hellenistic age (310-100 b.c.)

57. The Influence of Alexander58. Chief Centres of Sculpture in the Hellenistic Acie59. The Pastoral Tendency Hellenistic Reliefs60. Boethus, and Children in Sculpture61. Chares, and the Colossus of Rhodes62. eutychides and the impersonation of cities63. Portraiture ......64. History of the Dedications of the Attalids65. The Dedications of Attalus I.

. . .

66. The Dedications of Eumexes II..

67. The Rhodian School the Laocoon.

68. Tralles THE Faenese Bull....

69. The Ephesian School Agasias70. Later Ideals of the Gods ; Apollo Belvedere, Aphrodite

of Melos, etc.71. Other Works of the Hellenistic Age72. Summary .......

PAOE

434437438441442446449452453459468472475

477485490

CHAPTER VI

GRAECO-ROMAN and ROMAN SCULPTURE

73. Historical and Social Changes74. The Carrying off of Masterpieces

.

7.5. Centres of Art and Migration of Artists76. Statues of the Gods . . . .77. Works of the Neo-Attic School78. Arcesilaus

. . . . .

79. Pasiteles and his School80. Portraiture

. . , . .

492495496497501505508512


22/589

XVI A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE

PAGE

81. Historical Monuments.....

516

82. Antinous and the Hadeianic Revival. .

.517

83. Sarcophagi.......

519

84. Summary........

521

INDEX 52.3

INDEX OF SCULPTORS 551


23/589
http://www.forgottenbooks.org/in.php?btn=4&pibn=1000002121&from=pdfhttp://www.forgottenbooks.org/in.php?btn=3&pibn=1000002121&from=pdfhttp://www.forgottenbooks.org/in.php?btn=2&pibn=1000002121&from=pdfhttp://www.forgottenbooks.org/in.php?btn=1&pibn=1000002121&from=pdf


24/589

xviii A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE

Pausanias. DescriptioGraeciae. Ed. Hitzigand Bliimiier. Part I. Berlin,1896.

Pausanias. DescriptioGraeciae. Ed. Frazer.Pliny. Bks. xxxiv. and xxxvi. Ed. K. Jex Blake and E. Sellers, London,

1896.LiTC'iAN. Imagines,JupiterTragoedus,etc.

Coins reproducing StatuesF. Imhoof-Blumer and P. Gardner. Numismatic Commentary on Pau-anias.

(Reprintedfrom the Journal of Hellenic Studies,1885, 1886,1887.)P.Gardner. Types of Greek Coins. Cambridge, 1883.

Bools dealing u-itJiportionsof the subjectFurtwangler, a. Meisterwerke der griechischenlastik. Leipzig-Berlin,

1893.

Masterpiecesof Greek Sculpture,transl. E. Sellers. London, 189.'i.Newton, Sir C. T. Essays on Art and Archaeology. London, 1880.Baumeister. Denkmaler des klassischen Altertums ; Articles on Sculpture

and Sculptors. Munich and Lei^Jzig,884-88.OvERBECK. Kunstmythologie. Leipzig,1871-1889.RoscHER. Lexikon der griechischennd rcimischen Mythologie ; Articles on

Artistic Types of Gods. Leipzig,1884.Britnn. Griechische Gotterideale. Munich, 1893.ScHUCHHARDT. Schliemanu's Ausgrabungen. Leipzig,1890. Schlieniann's

Excavations, transl. E, Sellers. London, 1891.MiLCHHuFER, A. Anfiiugeder Kunst in Griechenland. Leipzig,1883.CcRTlus and Adler. Olympia (officialublication).Berlin, 1890 . Vol.

in. Die Bildwerke in Stein und JMarmor (Treu). Vol. lY. Die Bronzen(Furtwangler).

Waldstein, C. Essays on the Art of Pheidias. Cambridge, 1 885.Petersen. Kunst des Phidias. Berlin,1873.Collignon. Phidias. Paris,1886.MiCHAELis. Der Parthenon. Leipzig,1871.Benndorf. Das Hereon von Gjolbaschi-Trysa.Vienna, 1889.Paris, P. Polyclete. Paris,1895.Urlichs. Skopas. Greifswald,1863.Stark. Niobe und die Niobiden. Leipzig,1863.Hamdy-Bey and Th. Reinach. Necropoleroyalei\Sidon. Paris,1896.


25/589


26/589

XX A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE

^Annali e Monumenti del Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica. Rome,J 1829-1885.iArchiiologischeZeitung. Berlin, 1843-1885.

After 1885 continued by

Jalirbuch des k. deutschen archiiologischen Instituts. Beilin, 1886 .Antike Denkmiiler des k. deutschen archiiologischen Instituts. Berlin,

1886 .

Mittheilungen des k. deutschen archiiologischen Instituts. Rome, 1886 :

Athens, 1875 ,

'E^rj/xepls 'Apxat-oXoyiKT]. Athens, 1883 .


27/589

comiaionest abbreviations used in the

notp:s

/V. Q Overbeck, Die antikcn SchriftqucUen zur Geschichte derhildcndcn Ki'mste bci den Griechcn.

B. I) Brunii-Bruckmann, Denkmdler der Griechisclien midMomische Skulptur, Munich.

C. I. G....

Corpus Inscriptimium Graecarum (Boeckli).C. I. A.

...Corptis Inscriptionnvi Atticarum.

I. G. A....

Inscriptiones Graecac Antiquissimac (Roehl).

Loewy....

Loewy, Inscliriftcn griechischer Bildhaucr.Ann. Inst.

. .

Annali deW Instituto di Correspondenza A rcheologica,Rome.

2Ion. Insf.. . .

Monumcnti Inediti ddV Instituto di CorrespoiidenzaArcheologica, Rome.

A. Z.. . . .

Archdologischc Zeitung, Berlin.Jlittheil. Ath.

.

Mittheihmgen des K. deutschen archdologiscken InstittUs,.

Athens.

Mitthcil. Hoiiu.

Milthcilungen des K. deutschen archaologischen, Instituts,Rome.

Jahrb Jahrhuch des K. deutschen archaologischen Instituts,Berlin.

B. C. H.. . .

Bulletin de Correspondance Hellenique, Athens.J. H. S. . . . Journal of Hellenic Studies, London.

'Ei^. '.\px-

'Ei/)i7/tepis ApxO'i-o'KoyiKri, Athens.'i\pX- AeXrt'oi'

. .\'i.pxai'0\oyt.Kbi AeXrlov, Athens.


28/589


29/589

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

FIG. PAGE

1. Gold Cups from Vapbio, near Sparta (Athens, National Museum) 612. Argive bronze relief, from Olymiiia (Athens, National Museum) . 633. Heracles and Triton, on an island gem (British Museum) . . 634. Homeric Shield of Achilles

. . . . ..71

5. Chest of Cypselus, . . . . .

.-776. Apollo of Amyclae, from a coin of Sparta

. . ..81

7. Primitive statue on throne, from a coin of Aenus. .

.81

8. Statue of Chares, ruler of Tichiussa, from Branchidae (BritishMuseum)

. .

'

. . . . .106

9. Sculptured Column, dedicated by Croesus in the temple at Ephesus(British Museum)

......

108

10. Harpy Monument, from Xanthus in Lycia (British Museum).

110

11. Statue dedicated by Cheramyes to Hera at Samos (Louvre).

11312. Statue found on the Acropolis at Athens, resembling that from

Samos (Athens, Acropolis Museum). . .

11513. Winged figure dedicated at Delos, probably by Micciades and

Archermus of Chios (Athens, National Museum).

.11814. Statue dedicated at Delos by Nicandra of Naxos to Artemis

(Athens, National Museum)....

120

ji5. Apollo found at Thera (Athens, National Museum). .

124

16. Relief to A})ollo and the Nymphs, from Thasos (Louvre). .

128

17. Two maidens holding flowers ; relief from Pharsalus in Thessaly(Louvre)

.......131

18. Cretan Statue (Museum, Candia). . . .

.13419. Spartan Tombstone, formerly in the Sabourofl' Collection (Berlin)

.

136

20. Apollo found at Tenea (Munich). . .

.14021. Metope of earliest series, from Selinus (Palermo)

. . .143


30/589

xxiv A HAXDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE

FIG. PAGE

22. Metope of second series,from Seliims (Palermo) . . . 1-1623. Apollo ' from Orchomenus in Boeotia (Athens, Katioual Museum) 14821. Apollo from Mount Ptous in Boeotia (Athens, National Museum) 15025. Apollo,showing Aeginetan influence,from Mount Ptous in Boeotia

(Athens, National Museum) . . . .15126. Coin of Athens, with the Apollo of Delos by Tectaeus and

Angelion . . . . . . .15327. Half of pediment in rough limestone, representing Typhon

(Athens, AcropolisMuseum) .... 16028. Draped female statue (Athens, AcropolisMuseum) . . 16629. Draped female statue (Athens, Acroj)olisuseum) . . 16830. Draped female statue, of primitive shape (Athens, Acroiwlis

Museum) . . . . . . . .17031. Head of draped female statue (Athens, AcropolisMuseum) . 17332. Statue of man carrying calf,dedicated by (?) Conbos (Athens,

AcropolisMuseum) . . . . . .17633. Stela of Aristion,by Aristocles (Athens, National Museum) . 17934. Relief on a marble throne from Athens, representingHarmodius

and Aristogiton(Broom Hall) . . . .18235. Copy after groi^) of Harmodius and Aristogiton,probably liy

Critius and Nesiotes (Naples) .... 18436. Co2)yafter statue of Aristogiton,probablyby Critius and Nesiotes ;

the head from a later statue (Naples) . . . 18637. Draped female statue, showing Doric influence (Athens, AcropolisMuseum) . . . . . . .188

88. Head of Ephebus (Athens, Acrojiolisuseum) . . . 18939. Bronze statuette from Ligourio,near Epidaiirus(]^ erlin) . 19640. West pediment from temple at Aegina (Munich) . . . 20141. Figure reaching to grasp fallen -warrior, from E. ])ediment at

Aegina (Munich) ......42. Dying warrior, from corner of E. pediment at Aegina (Munich)43. Bronze head, perhaps Aeginetan (Athens, AcropolisMu.seum)44. Restoration of E. pediment of temple of Zeus at Olympia

(Olymjna) . . . . . . .21945. Restoration of W. pediment of temple of Zeus at Olympia

(Olympia) ....... 21946. Apollo,from centre of W. pediment at Olympia (Olympia) . 22447. Aged seer, from E. pediment at Olympia (Olympia) . . 226


31/589


32/589

XXVI A HAXDROOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE

FIG.77. Amazon, Capitolinetype (Rome, Vatican) .78. Amazon Mattel (Rome, Vatican) ....79. Head from Heraeum, near Argos (Athens, National Museum)80. Victoryby Paeonius (Olympia) ....81. Irene and Plutus,after Cephisodotus(Municli)82. Hermes and infant Dionysus, by Praxiteles (Olympia)83. Head of Hermes, by Praxiteles (Olympia) .84. Aphrodite of Cnidus, after Praxiteles (Rome, Vatican). From

J. H. S., PI. Ixxx. ....85. Satyr,after Praxiteles (Rome, Capitol)86. Relief from Mantinean basis ; Apollo and Marsyas (Athens,

National Museum) ......87. Amazon from pediment at Epidaurus (Athens, National Museum)88. Ganymede, after Leochares (Rome, Vatican)89. Heads from pediment at Tegea by Scopas (Athens, National

Museum). After Berlin Antike Denkmultrr, I. 35 (from east)90. Portrait of Mausolus (BritishMuseum) ....91. Slal) from large frieze of Mausoleum, with Amazons (British

Jfuseum) ......92. Charioteer from small frieze of Mausoleum (British Museum93. Tombstone of Hegeso (Athen.s,Ceramicus) .94. Tombstone of Dexileos (Athens, Ceramicus)95. Asclepius,from Epidaurus,probably after statue by Thrasymedes(Athens, National Museum)96. Heads of Anytus and Artemis, from group by Damoplion at Lyco

sura (Athens, National Museum]97. Drapery from group by Damophon at Lycosura (Athens, National

Museum) .....98. Apoxyomenus, after Lysippus (Rome, Vatican)99. Demeter, from Cnidus (Briti.sh\Iuseuni) .100. Head of Asclepius,from Melos (BritishMuseum)101. Head from S. of Acropolis(Athens, National Museum)102. Drum of column from E] hesus(BritishMuseum)103. Niolte and her youngest daughter (Florence,Uffizi)104. Niobid Chiaramonti (Rome, Vatican)105. Son of Niobe (Florence,Uffizi)10*1. N. side of Alexander Sarcophagus (Constantinople). After

Hamdy-Bey and Reinach, Nicropolede Sidon, PI. xxix.

PAr.B3343353403423533573.^j8

361365

367373375

379388

390391305396

398

401

402407415417418420422424425

429


33/589

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xxvu

FIO.

107. Head of Alexander (British Museum).

'

.

108. Hellenistic relief; Dionysus visiting a dramatic poet (BritishMuseum) ......

109. Boy and goose, after Boethus (Louvre)110. Antioch, after Eutychides (Rome, Vatican)111. Dying Gaul (Rome, Capitol) ....112. Dead Amazon and Giant, after Pergamene group on Acropolis at

Athens (Naples).....

11-3. Fighting Persian, after Pergamene group on Acropolis at Athen(Rome, Vatican)

.....

114. Group from Pergamene Altar ; Zeus and Giants (Berlin) .115. Group from Pergamene Altar ; Athena, Giants, Earth (Berlin)116. Laocoon (Rome, Vatican)

.....

117. Farnese Bull (Naples).....

118. Borghese Warrior, by Agasias (Louvre)119. Apollo Belvedere (Rome, Vatican)120. Artemis of Versailles (Louvre)

....

121. Aphrodite from Melos (Louvre) ....122. Victory from Samothrace (Louvre)123. Head from Eleusis, known as Eubuleus (Athens, National

ilnseum)......

124. Venus dei Medici (Florence, Uflizi)125. Farnese Heracles, by Glycon (Naples)126. Marble Vase with relief, by Sosibius (Louvre). After Bouillon III

Vases H Urnes, PI. 8127. Venus Genetrix, probably after Arcesilaus (Louvre)128. Orestes and Electra, Pasitelean group (Naples)129. Portrait of Julius Caesar (British Museum)130. Relief ; portrait of Antiuous (Rome, Villa Albanii

PAOE

436

439443

447455

459

460

463

465

471474476

479481

483

486

488

500

503

504

506

511514

518


34/589

NOTE

Since I have not accepted, as conclusively proved, Professor

Furtwangler's identification of the Lemnian Athena by Phidias,

I regret the more that I have, in my desire for brevity, made a

slightly incorrect statement of the evidence on which the

identification is based. On page 265 I stated that the head of

the Athena at Dresden is made in a separate piece, and the

Bologna head exactly fits the socket. The Bologna head fits

the socket not of the complete Athena at Dresden, but of aheadless duplicate of the same statue, also at Dresden. My

scepticism as to the identification of the statue as the Lemnian

Athena of Phidias has met with some criticism both here and

in Cxermany ; but if it leads my readers to weigh the evidence

more carefully for themselves, my purpose will be attained,

even though they may difter from me in their conclusion.


35/589

INTKODUCTION

(a) Sources of our Knowledge Literature and Monuments

The sources from which we derive our knowledge of Greeksculpture and of its history fall naturally into two classes : oneof these is literary, and may be sought in the Avritings thathave been preserved to us from classical times ; the other ismonumental, and is to be found in extant works of sculpture.For the first we must go to libraries, for the second to museums.An intelligent combination of the two, and a correct apprecia-ion

of their varying relations, is a necessary foundation forany scientific study of the history of Greek sculpture. Andeach class is still further complicated in itself by the indirectnature of the evidence with which we have to deal, and thedifficulty of ascertaining the exact relation between the in-ormation

we possess and the ultimate fact which it is ourdesire to ascertain.

1. Literary Sources}

-These we may divide into {a) direct, and(b) indirect.

(a) Direct literary sources for the history of sculpture inGreece may be divided into three classes, according as theyconsist of theoretical, historical, or descriptive works.^

^ These are collected in Overbeck's invaluable Schrifiquellen zur GescJiichteder hildenden KiXnste bei den Griechen. I assume this to be in the hands of thestudent throughout, aud so do not refer to it in each particular instance. Seealso H. Stuart Jones's Ancient Writers on Greek Sculpture, Selections, which con-ains

the most important passages, with a translation and commentary.^ See Urlichs, Uehcr griechische Kunstschriftsteller; Robert, Archaologisclie

Mdrchen; Furtwiingler, Die Quellen des Plinius fiir der Geschichte der hildendenKunste, etc. H. Stuart Jones, in the preface to the work above mentioned, givesa clear summary of the results of recent investigation.

B B


36/589

2 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE

Theoretical works upon the principlesof sculpture werewritten by several of the most distinguishedrtists of anti-uity

; but none of these have been preservedto us, and there-orethey can hardly rank as direct sources of information.Yet they cannot be entirelyignoredeven in this aspect ; for

later compilershave recorded many opinions or statements,often without acknowledgment,which we can trace with moreor less certaintyo these lost treatises. The first of them wasa work by Polyclitus,ho, as we are told,taught the pro-ortions

of the body, and embodied them in a statue to which,as to his treatise also,he gave the name of the Canon.Euphranor, who was a sculptors well as a painter,rote alsoupon colouringand proportion. But in the Hellenistic agesuch treatises became, as we might have expected,uch com-oner.

In sculpture,as in literature,the age of criticismsucceeded the age of production. The School of Lysippus,with its academic tendency to the study of the methods andworks of earlier masters, would naturallyrequiretheoretical andhistorical treatises on art ; and Xenocrates (c.300 B.C.)ppearsto have done something to fulfil the need. The PergameneSchool also suppliedin Antigonusof Carystus(c.200 B.C.)nartist who wrote about art. These two are cited by Plinyasauthorities ; and very probablytheir works commonly served asa basis for the treatises of later writers.

Duris of Samos (c.300 B.C.)is the first writer whom weknow to have written a definitelyhistorical treatise,con-erningartists,ot art. He was a pupil of Theophrastus,and

throughhim many of the personalanecdotes preservedto usabout artists have been traced to the Peripatetichilosophers.Pasiteles,ho lived in Kome in the first century before ourera, and is the most typicalexample in ancient times of anacademic sculptor,rote five volumes about the most famousworks of art in the world ; and his work most probablyformeda critical and historical treatise which was valuable to latercompilers. His contemporary, Varro, the most learned ofantiquaries,rote about art as well as other matters. Butof all these authorities we poss-ess little,if any, certainremains ; for the facts which they recorded we are dependentalmost entirelyupon Pliny, who in books xxxiv.-xxxvi. ofhis Natural Jlidorygivesan account of the historyof sculpturein various materials, as well as of painting. His work is


37/589


38/589

4 A HANDBOOK OF GKEEK SCULPTUllE

his knowledge and critical faculty,although he preferred ||literature to sculptureas a pursuit. His judgments thereforeoffer us a far safer clue to the true nature of any work thanthe ignorantcompilationsupon which we are usuallydependent. ,,Incidental notices by other critics,uch as Quintilian,re also 11useful,though they perhaps belong rather to the second classof literaryauthorities ; and Plutarch, Dio Chrysostom, andothers,giveus a good deal of information about sculptureandsculptors.

(b)Indirect references to sculptorsand to works of art occurthroughoutclassical literature from Homer down. It wouldnot be profitableo classifyhese references,hich naturallyshow very great variety. In the case of a people like theGreeks, in whose life so important a placewas taken by sculp-ure,

the poet, the historian,nd the philosopherere sure tospeak frequentlyof works of art, whether for their own sakeor in illustration of other matters. Conscious and directcriticism belongsof course rather to the age of decadence ; butwithout a familiarityith Greek literature,e should not bein a positionto form correct judgments as to Greek sculptureeither in detail or in its more generalaspects.

2. Monumental Sources. The first division of these is insome respects intermediate between literature and monuments the inscriptionshich belong to works of sculpture. Themost valuable of these are the artists' signatures,hich, how-ver,

were almost always in earlier times inscribed upon theseparate basis,not upon any part of the statue itself; andtherefore the cases are very rare in which we possess the actualwork and the signaturepreserved together. But the list ofartists' names which we derive from inscriptionsis usefulfor comparison with that which we derive from books ; and wefind that for the fifth and fourth centuries before our era thetwo for the most part coincide,though in earlier or later timesa large number of the sculptorswhose names we find ininscriptionsre otherwise unknown to us. Other inscriptionsconnected with works of art are commoner especiallyuch asrecord the purpose or circumstances of the dedication or erection

^ These have been collected by Hirschfeld, Tituli Statuariorum Sadii-torumque, and later and more completely by Loewy, Inschriften griechisckeiBildkauer. The introducLion of this last book sliould be consulteil for infor-ation

as to these inscriiitionsnd their character, whicli cannot be treatedhere.


39/589


40/589


brieflyotice some of the more common methods by which theywere scattered and destroyed. Pausanias ah-eady gives oneindication,by mentioningthe gaps left in many placesby thedepredationsof Roman Emperors. Ever since the sack ofCorinth,in 146 B.C., Greece had been ransacked for statues todecorate the buildingsf Rome, but such were its riches thatit was long before this process could make any appreciabledifference ; at the foundation of Constantinople,again,Romeand Greece alike were plundered to decorate the new capital.The gatheringtogetherof the finest masterpiecesin Rome andConstantinople was a danger to their existence,but theirdestruction has still to be explained. The credit of this iscommonly given to barbarian invaders ; but the ignorantgreedof the degenerate natives was probably responsiblefor evenmore wanton destruction,whether in the scattered shrines ofGreece or in the great centres of civilisation. When bronzeand marble had become more preciousin themselves than theart that had found in them the means of perpetuatingitsnoblest ideals,the fate of sculpturewas sealed. Bronze, notto speak of more preciousmetals,was ruthlesslyelted down;and even marble Avas burnt to produce mortar the Ijme-kilnsupon every classical site record the fate of the statues that oncepeopled it. Under these circumstances what we have toexplain is not how most works of sculpturewere destroyed,but how any survived. Some few have always remained aboveground and visible,nd have owed their preservationo someexceptionalircumstance probably to their dedication to somenew religiousse before the sanctityf the old had failed toprotectthem : thus the Parthenon long preservedits sculpturaldecoration by serving first as a church, and afterwards as amosque; and other buildingshave had a similar fate. It appears,too, that many statues now venerated as Christian saints begantheir existence as deities of a different religion.So, again,thebronze statue of Marcus Aurelius in Rome is said to owe itspreservationo a fortunate mistake, having been supposedto represent the Christian saint and emperor Constantine.But such cases as this are exceptional.Almost all the statuesthat fillour museums have at some time been buried,whetherby accident or of set purpose, and brought to lightagain eitherby chance or by systematicexcavation. Thus the Venus ofMelos is said to have been found in a subterranean grotto


41/589

INTRODUCTION 7

where she must have been hidden by some ancient worshipperto save her from destruction. For the most part, however,statues were buried by chance amidst the ruins of the buildingsin Avhich they once had stood ; it is difficult for us to realisethe extent to which this took place,o as to fill the soil ofGreece and Italywith statues and other works of art. Theburial of antiquities,y gradualneglectas well as by violentdestruction, is always a puzzle to the excavator, but it un-oubtedly

took place. The soil of every ancient site is nowmany feet higher than in earlytimes ; and in the accumulateddebris the valuable as well as the useless has often been buried.This fact appears most clearlyin a dead flat like the Delta ofEgypt, where every old inhabited site is marked by a moundvarying in heightaccordingto the lengthof the periodduringwhich it was occupied. Sometimes, too, the sea or rivers haveyieldedup treasures once cast into their beds. In particular,the Tiber has given up latelyome magnificentbronzes,and itis stiljbelieved to contain not only the goldencandlestick ofJerusalem, but also many masterpiecesof Greek and Romansculpture.

So far we have been concerned with the way in whichstatues came to be lost or to be preserved,and how theyreached the placesin which they were found. Their historysubsequent to their discoveryis not of so much importancetoour present purpose. If the rule now enforced in almost allcountries where Greek antiquitiesre to be discovered hadbeen observed in earlier times, there would have been littlemore to say. The exportationof antiquitiess now eitherentirelyprohibited,r allowed only within strict limits and inthe case of articles of secondaryimportance, o that all statuesrecentlyiscovered either remain in the placewhere they werefound, or have been carried,at farthest,o the central museumof the country ; and in all cases it is easy to ascertain theirprovenance. These regulationsare, however, of comparativelyrecent growth ; and the sculpturewhich we have to study isto be found, not only in Greece and Italy,but scatteredthroughoutthe museums of Europe.

Until the end of the last century, when Stuart's di'awingsofAttic monuments were published,he sculpturethat remained in

^ lu the case of sculpturethis law cau usually be enforced. It is obviouslyfar more diflBcult to prevent the clandestine export of smaller antiquities.


42/589


Greece itself was but little known ; and it was not until thepresent century that any considerable series of monumentscame to be exported from Greece. Before this period thegreat majorityof the extant works of sculpturehad been foundupon Italian soil,for the most part under circumstances whichyieldedbut little external evidence to help their identification.Many of them are either Avorks of inferior interest,such aswere turned out in great numbers to satisfya commercialdemand, or copiesof works, well known perhaps in ancienttimes,but difficult for us now to recognise.Even such as areoriginalsf Greek workmanship had probablybeen transportedin ancient times from the placewhere they were originallyetup ; and thus in almost all cases we are reduced to internalevidence in any attempt to identifyhem. In most cases suchidentification,owever ingenious,annot rise beyond the regionof probable conjectvire,nless the exact descriptionof anancient writer,or the close resemblance of the reproductionna coin or other small work of ai-t,enables us to be sure that wehave before us the originalrom which it was derived.

It is otherwise with the works found upon Greek soil. Thenotices in ancient writers,and, above all,the completeand exactdescriptionf Pausanias,have made it possiblen many cases toidentifyAvith certaintyworks which have been found by theexcavator on the spot Avhere we knoAv them to have stood inancient times. This is most often the case Avith the sculpturethat adorned a temple,as at Olympia,Athens, and Aegina ; orthe statues that stood Avithin it, like the group made byDamophon at Lycosura; but singlededications,ike the Hermesof Praxiteles,a\^e been identified in the same way, and somestatues, preservedAvith their bases like the Victoryof Paeonius,are identified by the yet more satisfactoryvidence of aninscription.The statues foTuid in Italyhave undergone many vicissitudes ;they have passed from one collection to another,until many ofthem have found a permanent home in some museum. Severalmuseums possess also great series of Avorks which are paramountin the study of a particulareriodor school. Thus the BritishMuseum jjossesses the Elginmarbles from Athens, the Phigalianfrieze,he sculpturesfrom Ephesus,and from the Mausoleum ;Munich has the Aegina pediments,and Berlin the sculpturefrom the great altar at Pergamus ; NaplesshoAvs an uiuiAalled


43/589

INTRODUCTION 9

collection of bronzes from Pompeii and Hercnlancum; and Athens,Olympia,and Delphi contain the rich productsof recent excava-ion.

Site after site is stillyieldingnew material for our study,and the progress of artisticcriticism sometimes adds a new identi-ication

among what is alreadyknown. But the great series whichare alreadyin our museums must always form the foundationupon which the historyof Greek sculptureis based.

We have followed the course of events by which someportionof the vast wealth of statuary, which once filledall theshrines of ancient Greece, has come to be preserved in themuseums of modern Europe. We are thus in a better positionfor rightlyappreciatingthe relation of extant Avorks to thehistoryof sculpture in Greece ; it is clear,for instance,that abronze work is,from the intrinsic value of the material of whichit is composed,far less likelythan a marble work to survive thevicissitudes which all alike have undergone. Thus we are pre-ared

for the very great preponderance of sculpturein marblewhich we find in all modern museums, and shall not be led toinfer that there was a similar preponderance of marble overbronze in ancient Greece.

If we possessedall the ancient works that have come tolightexactlyin the state in which they first emerged from theground, we could now at once proceed to their classification ;but unfortunatelythis is not the case. We have anotherprocess to reckon with first,hat of restoration. Until withinquite recent years, the first thing to be done, upon the dis-overy

of any portion of an ancient statue which seemedconsiderable enough to be worth preservingat all,was to handit over to a restorer. Many excellent sculptors,rom MichaelAngelo to Thorwaldsen, have undertaken this work. Butthough the result may in many cases be of high artistic value,from the pointof view of the student of art historythe processis in all cases equally disastrous. Had the restorer beencontent with restoringthe missingparts, however erroneouswere the impressionproduced on the untrained observer,itwould still have been possiblefor the student to distinguishcarefullywhat was new from what was old, and to use thelatter only for his purposes. But restoration unfortunatelydid not content itself with this ; the modern sculptorhas inalmost all cases worked over the whole siirface of the old marbleto make it uniform in style and appearance with his own


44/589


additions,and thus has often entirelydestroyedthe surfacemodellingof the original.^t is to the lastingloryof Canovathat he probably saved the Elgin marbles from a fate like this,by not only refusingto restore them himself,but also pro-estingagainstany restoration of such works ; and this excellentexample has gradually prevailed,so that no ancient workwould now be restored in any first-rate museum. To restore acast, or even the originalin plaster,ithout cuttingaway itsfractures,s of course harmless and often useful,and this planis sometimes adopted. The student must then, in dealingwithany work discovered before the present century, first discoverhow much of the statue is ancient ; and then, if possible,llowfor the surface working to which even that ancient portionhasbeen subjected,efore he proceedsto quote it for any scientificpurpose.

Assuming this to be done, we must next proceedto classifyextant works accordingto their relation to the history ofancient sculpture. From this point of view we may divide allworks of sculptureinto three classes (1) originals,2) copies,(3)imitations.

(1) Originalsmay be defined as works which were actuallymade by the hand or under the immediate direction of thesculptorto whom they are to be assigned. But in this verydefinition is implied a distinction which must not be ignored.It is clear that we can only judge of a sculptor'sork at itsbest from an independent work of art, made in and for itselfin his studio ; from such a statue alone is it possibletoappreciatethe excellence of his technique,and in such alonecan we see the direct expressionof his idea and the authenticproductof his genius. Works like these are of the rarest, aswe might expect. The Hermes of Praxiteles is the bestexample which we possess of an originaltatue direct fromthe hand of one of the great masters of antiquity.It ispossiblethat there may be other instances in some of ourmuseums, but in no other case is the evidence so convincingand a word of warning is needed againstmany rash identifica-ions

of this sort that have been made with more or less

^ Thorwaldseu, in the case of the Aegiua marbles, worked over the surface ofthe restored portions to make them uniform with tlie ancient parts, even in theappearance of corrosion, etc. a proceedingequallyconfusing to the student,thoughof course not equallyreprehensible.


45/589


46/589


47/589


48/589


And the Greeks were fullyware of the necessityof a more orless conventional treatment for decorative work ; in such cases toogreat a truth to nature would often be painful,s in the instanceof the giantswho served as architectural supports in the templeof Zeus at Girgenti(Acragas) and especiallyn the case ofreliefs with dancingfigures,he archaistic treatment of accessoriesseems by its stiffness to bind them to the ground which elsethey would seem ready to leave.^ Later on, the mere quaint-ness of conventional archaic forms seems to have been soughtafter for its own sake,as in the case of the new- Attic reliefs -(which,however, were mostly decorative);nd even statueswere sometimes made upon this principle,hough most of theapparent instances are probablyrather to be regarded as copiesof some archaic originalthan as imitative works. In mostexamples of these imitative archaistic statues or reliefs there isnot much danger of deception to the trained eye; the artistalmost alwaysbetrayshis knowledgeof the resources of a moreadvanced art in some portionsof his work, and he exaggerateswhat he imaginesto be archaic characteristics,uch as the poiseof the figuresn tip-toe,he stilfzigzagfolds of drapery,turningup at the ends in an unnatural manner, and the conventionaltreatment of the hair. In some cases he has been so successfulthat a doubt is possiblewhether the work is archaistic or trulyarchaic ; but it is usuallyeasy to see the difference between theproduction of a conventional and frigidlymitative art, andthe honest strivingf an earlysculptorto do his utmost withthe types and resources at his command, and to fill the stift'forms he has inherited with a greater truth to nature and anearer approach to life.

There is another and a diflferentclass of imitative sculptures;of this the best known examples are associated with the name ofPasiteles,^Greek artist who lived in Eome in the firstcenturyB.C. This artist and his scholars set themselves deliberatelyostudy and imitate the styleof earlyworks, especiallyhoseof the athletic schools of the fifth century ; and as a result ofthis study they produced statues which, in some cases, were notcopiesof any individual works of those schools,but generallyreproduced the styleand subjectsof the earlier period. Sucha tendency as this can only be found in an age of decadence,

^ See Brunn, Dns teldonische I'rmcip in der gricchischenunst.^ See below, 77. ^ See below, 79.


49/589

INTRODUCTION 15

since it impliesthe artist's dissatisfaction with the art of hisuwn day, and his feelingthat the only hope of improvement isin an artificialreturn to a long-paststage of development. Wemay see the influence of this feelingin many other works,which we should hardly care to class as purely imitative ; forinstance, in the Venus of Melos ; ^ but when, as in that case,the artist has rather sought inspirationrom the ideals of anearlier age than merely tried to imitate its types or its detailsof technical execution, the result is of a nobler and moreindependent character. Every sculptormust, of course, learnfrom his predecessorsit is only when such study occupiesitself w'ith their mannerisms rather than with their style,theirdefects rather than their excellences,hat it betrays the weak-ess

which leads to imitative and archaistic productions.

(h)Materials and Processes ofGreek SculptureThe materials used by the Greeks for sculpturemay beilivided into four classes (1) Wood {^vXov) this was often inlaid or gilded,and

sometimes portionsAvere inserted in marble {aKpcXiOoi)r thewhole was covered with gold and ivory(xpvtrekecfjdvTLva).

(2) Stone or Marble {XlOos).(3) Meial,most frequentlybronze (xaA/ os)but silver and

2;oldwere sometimes used.(4) Terra-cotta (-Trrikiva),nd other artificialmaterials,such asporcelainr glazedware (XiOtvax^'^'^jtc.)

We will first consider the use made by Greek sculptorsofeach of these materials,and the technical processes which heemployed in working them ; there are also two other questionswhich find here their most natural place

(5) The applicationf colour to sculpture.(6) The use of pointingfrom finished models.(1) JVood. In a primitivestage of art wood seems the

most obvious material,both from the ease with which it can beobtained and the facilityith which it is Avorked. Unfortun-tely

the climate of Greece is not such as to preserve so1 See below, 70.2 'niroughoutthis secticMi T am indebted to Bliimner, Technologicuna Tar-

viinologie.


50/589


perishable material until the p^^esent time,^ as it has beenpreservedin the earlywooden statues from Egypt ; and we aretherefore left to gather our information as to Greek sculpturein wood either from literaryotices,r from the traces left bythe influence of wood-carvingupon survivingsculpturein moredurable substances.

The extent to which wood was used as a material forsculptureis testified by the numerous descriptionsof earlywooden statues which we meet in Pausanias and other writers.^But beyond the mere fact that the material was used, welearn very little from this literaryotice. Even such meagredescriptionss we possess of a few of them can only be in-erpret

in the lightof extant monuments. Ebony, cedar,andcypress, oak, olive,and other kinds of wood,^ were used tomake statues of the gods,often doubtless with appropriatenessto the particulardeity; in fact,to shape a statue was but astep in advance of the stage where the tree itself sei'ved asthe symbol of the deity.The notion that wood was the material most readilyfoundand worked in early times is exemplifiedby the tale of thewooden ^ horse at Troy ; though this imaginary structurecannot be taken seriouslyas an exception to the rule thatthere is no mention of sculpturein Homer.^

Pausanias' attribution of wooden statues extant in histime to Daedalus ^ tells us little more than that they wereof the conventional archaic type. AVhen we come to Dipoenusand Scyllis,his legendary pupils,but beyond doubt alsohistorical artists,e have more definite information. They aresaid to have made a group in ebony, with portionsin ivory;and their pupilsworked in cedar, in cedar and gold,and inivoryand gold. Another famous specimen of earlydecorativeart in wood, the chest of Cypselus,was carved in cedar,withinsertions in gold and ivory,and its material seems to imply a

^ Pieces of wood, structural or decorative, have been preservedin exceptionalcases ; but no work of wooden sculpture.

^ The word ^6apov seems to mean a wooden statue in Pausanias,but not alwaysin other writers.

^ Pans. viii. 1 , 2.* dovpareos,.e.made of plauks and beams, like a ship ; of. dopxjvrjCov,doipara

irvpywv, etc.^ Ree 1 1 .^ 'llie very name of Daedalus probably impliescunning in decorative wood-ork,

especiallynlaying.


51/589


52/589


wooden form, and we see in a round statue like that fromSamos (Fig.11) its simplestmodification.

In the case of the great goldand ivorystatues, which were,as we have seen, originally development from sculptureinwood, the technique and construction were extremely com-licated.

Probably,in small examples,the whole was made insolid wood, as in primitivetimes, and merely plated on thesurface with ivoryand gold. But in colossal works such a processwas impracticable.In the first place a strong and completeskeleton of wooden or metal bars was necessary ] and it had tobe carefullyonstructed so as to give support wherever it wasrequired,either by the members of the statue itself or by theattributes they carried. Over these must have been fixed aframework of wood to support the platesof gold and ivorywhich formed the visible surface. In order to mould or bendthese platesinto the requisiteshape,a full-size model in clayor jolasteras necessary, and we have indications that suchmodels existed : at Olympia, the workshop of Phidias was thesame size as the cella of the temple in which his statue ofZeus was to be erected ; and at Megara, where the outbreak ofthe Peloponnesian war prevented Theocosmus from finishinghis gold and ivorystatue of Zeus, all but the head was madeof clayand plaster doubtless the very model preparedby theartist to work from. And behind the same temple lay thehalf-finished wooden framework which had been intended tocarry the goldand ivoryplates.

(2)Stone or Marhle (XlOos).This is by far the commonestmaterial in all modern museums, though it probably Avas notso common as bronze in ancient times,at least for works of thehighestorder. But the comparativelyindestructible characterof marble, and its want of attraction to the plundererin searchof portablespoil,has led to its preservationin many casesAvhere all other materials have disappeared though marblealso has afforded abundant plunder to local settlers,s isattested by the numerous lime-kilns found upon every ancientsite where sculptureas to be found. But in spiteof this,avast quantityof sculpturein marble has survived,and it givesus the most full and varied information. For marble wasessentiallyhe material of all work in Greece. It was used bysome of the greatest sculptorsor the masterpieceshich theyfinished with their own hands ; and it also served the copyist


53/589

INTRODUCTION 19

to reproduce not only marble works, but others too whichwere originallyxecuted in bronze, in gold and ivory,or inother materials. Such copiesvary greatlyboth in their artisticvalue and in the fidelityith which they render either thegeneralcharacter of the originalork or its technical details ;but it is often possibleto estimate these qualitiesprettyexactly,nd to make use of them accordingly.

In earlytimes various kinds of soft stone, which were easyto carve, were freely used in sculpture. But it must beremembered that these coarse and often unsightlymaterialswere usually,f not always,covered with a coat of paint. Thustheir texture was obscured,and at the same time any delicatemodelling or high finish of the surface was superfluous.Atfirst any local material that could be easilyworked was con-idered

suitable for sculpture. Thus in Cyprus the local coarseand soft limestone was freelyused ; at Naucratis, often ala-aster

; and at Athens, the local Piraeus stone, in the primitivesculptures.This was the At^os ttw/oivos of the ancients,whichwas also extensivelyused for architecture. Many coarse andinferior local marbles were also used in earlytimes,and con-inued

to be used by local sculptorsas well as builders. Butwhen once the superiorityf some of the exquisitearbles ofGreece had been recognised,hese came to be exclusivelysedfor all works that had any pretensionto artistic excellence.^

Almost from the beginning of sculpture in Greece themarble from the two neighbouringislands of Naxos and Paroscame not only to be used by local sculptors,ut to be exportedeven to the more distant parts of Greece. Thus statues inNaxian marble have been found in placess remote from Naxosand one another as Samos, Boeotia,and Actium, and that toowith differences of stylesuch as to show that the marble musthave been exportedin blocks, not in finished statues.

^ ThisNaxian marble is usuallyof coarser grainthan Parian,but itis not always possibleto distinguishhe two, since there arcquarriesof coarser marble in Paros, and of finer in Naxos ; ^but this island marble is always easy to distinguishfrom the

^ For this whole subject see Lepsius, Griechische Marmorstudien.2 Not so Sauer, Mittheil. Ath. 1892, p. 37 ; but cf. Lepsius, op. ciL, Nos. 58,

250, 373-374, etc. Besides, the argiiments appliedby Sauer to Naxian marblemight just as well apply to Parian.

^ Prof. Lepsius is almost always very cautious about distinguishinghese twomarbles, and is usuallycontent with the term Inselmarmor to include both.


54/589


55/589


56/589


one statue we see the drill-holes by which a rod was fixedverticallyown the front of a statue to guide the sculptor'seye and hand. In the same unfinished statue we see how thefigureis graduallyut out of the block ; merelyroughed out atfirst,hile finer processes and more exact tools are used as thefinal surface isapproached. Thus the whole figureis worked overagainand again until there is but littleleft to come off. Then,on this last layerabove the final surface,he outlines of muscles andother details are drawn in broad shallow grooves ; thus the ai^tisthas their guidancein finishinghe modellingof the final surface.

The marks of working on statues, unfinished or finished,giveus a pretty complete notion of the tools used by the G-reeksculptor. For the rougher work the tool most used was asharp chipping instrument,either a punch used with a malletor a pointed hammer. Then the round chisel was used, bothin working away the surface where there was stilla good dealto remove, and in drawing the shallow grooves that guidedthe modelling. The claw chisel was also a favourite tool forthe parts approachingthe final surface ; the square or flatchisel ^ does not seem to have been much used except infinishing.Other finishingnstruments,such as various kindsof files,ould hardly be dispensed with ; and sand too wasdoubtless used for smoothing and polishing. Some archaicstatues show distinct traces of the use of the saw in cuttingthedeep vertical folds of drapery; in later times the drill wasextensivelyused both for these and for the hair. The inven-ion

of the drill is attributed by Pausanias to Callimachus,wholived in the latter part of the fifth century ; this is clearlyimpossible,rill marks beingvisible,or example, in the Aeginamarbles ; ^ but Callimachus, who was noted for the extremedelicacyand skill of his work, probably either improved theinstrument or used it far more extensivelythan had beforebeen usual in sculpture,especiallyor deep incision or under-utting.

The invention of sculpturein marble is attributedby Pliny in one passage to the Chian familyof Melas and hisdescendants, in another to the Ci'etan Daedalid artists,Dipoenus and Scyllis. He is evidentlyrepeatingwo rival andinconsistent traditions,derived from two different sources;^

' For ail illustratiou of these tools,see J. II. S. art. cit. p. 137.- Biuiiii,Geschichte d. gr. KiiJistler,. 253.

See 19.


57/589


58/589


malleable used for the Argive and Corinthian reliefs andsimilar Avorks. AVe hear of many varieties of bronze used inGreece in later times ; the best known were the Corinthian,esteemed the finest of all,and the Delian and Aeginetan,pre-erredby Myron and Polyclitusrespectively.hese wereprobably varying mixtures of copper and tin, to which theCorinthian is said to have sometimes added gold and silver ;but numerous analyseshave failed to establish any particularprojDortionss characteristic of any place or school. Thecombination of copper and zinc,which we know as brass,seemsnot to have been used for sculptureuntil Roman times.Before the introduction of foundry,platesor bars of bronzewere merely beaten out into the shape required,and allornaments or figuresin relief were beaten up with a bluntinstrument from behind {repoussi),nd finished by the en-raving

of details with a sharp instrument in front. Inprimitivestatuettes of the rudest workmanship it is often easyto distinguishthe different bars which are bent or beaten intothe requiredfigure. We are told also of statues which weremade of plates,eaten out into the required shape in j)ieces,and then riveted together such a statue of Zeus, made byClearchus of lihegium,was shown at Sparta.

A good illustration of the earlystages of bronze techniqueis offered by two images of Dionysus seen by Pausanias ^ atThebes. The first of these was a log of wood that fell fromheaven, plated with bronze, and probably resembling theApollo of Amyclae, which, we are told,was a mere column ofbronze with head, arms, and feet added. Beside this stoodanother statue of the god, cast in solid bronze. Such solidcastingis very common in earlystatuettes ; but for statues thewaste of valuable material and the inconvenient weight mustsoon have led to the introduction of hollow casting.This maybe performed by various methods, all of whicU were probablyin use among the Greeks. The essential thing is to introducea core into the inside of the mould, in such a way that themolten metal will not fill the mould entirely,s in solidcasting,ut only the interval between the mould and the core.If the coat of metal is to be at all thin,as it must be in finecasting,he core must correspondvery nearlyto the shape andsize of the mould. This may be done by takinga mould from

1 ix. 12, 4.


59/589

INTRODUCTION 25

a finished clay model, making a cast from this in some fire-roofmatei'ial,and then scrapingaway all over the surface

of the cast a thickness correspondingto the thickness of metalrequired. The cast being then placed within the mould, themetal poured into the interval between them will take theexact form of the originalodel. A mould and core of thisnature can, however, be produced with the greatest ease andaccuracy by the use of wax, in what is now known andpractisedas the cire perdue process. The method used inthis process is to introduce a coat of wax between the core andthe mould. The wax may be introduced by making a core oftire-proofaterial correspondingxactlyto the statue required,but fallingwithin its final surface by the thickness whichthe bronze is to have ; to this core the wax is applied allover to bring it up to the final surface,and then all de-ailed

modellingof surface is added on the wax itself. Overthis the mould is applied,first with fine sand laid on witha brush, afterwards with stronger and coarser material. Thewax can then be melted out and the metal poured in to takeits place. There is another and less simple way in which thewax can be inserted. First a claymodel is made correspondingexactly to the required statue, and finished on the surface.Over this is placedthe mould, by the same method as before.Then the mould is taken to pieces and the originallaymodeltaken out. A coat of wax of the requiredthickness is thenapplied to the inside of the mould, and the rest is filled upwith fireproofmaterial to form the core. Then the wax ismelted out and the metal poured in as before. This processseems to have been the one used by Polyclitus,o judgefrom his well

- known saying, xaXeTrwrarovto epyov oravv oV^x' o 7r7/Aos. He would have said 6 K7]p6s if hehad used the simplercire perdue process. On the other hand,we have no positiveevidence that he or the other sculptorsof his time used wax at all,althoughwe know that the useof wax in bronze foundry was practisedt least by later Greekartists.

Technical details in this process such as the insertion of barsto hold apart the core and the mould when the wax was Avith-drawn, the holes and channels for pouring the wax out and thebronze in,and the vent-holes for the escape of the air must havebeen similar at all times. The core was usually,though not


60/589


always/ extracted by being broken up and drawn out throughholes left for the purpose.

It was common in Greece to cast a bronze statue in parts,which were afterwards welded together. Thus upon a fifthcentury vase,- representingthe interior of a bronze sculptor'sworkshop, we see an unfinished statue into which a workman isfixingone of the arms, while the head lies beside him on theground. The same vase shows also the final process, subsequentto the casting; the surface is being polishedby strigil-likinstruments. Details also,especiallyn the treatment of thehair,were worked with a graver or other sharptool;the eyes wereusuallyinserted in different materials,and various details wereoften inlaid in silver or other metal. Indeed,so much dependedon this finishingf the surface of the bronze itself,hat it wasnecessary for a sculptor in bronze to be also a master of caelatura that is to say, to know all the technical processesused for decorative work in metal.

Silver was also used occasionallys a material for sculpture,mostlyfor statuettes and for decorative work. It was especiallypreferredy some artists of Hellenistic time, such as Boethus.

The use of goldin goldand ivorysculpturehas alreadybeenspoken of as a developmentof wood technique. Statues were alsomade entirelyf gold,mostly as sumptuous dedications by therich tyrants of earlytimes. Such golden statues are usuallyespeciallydistinguishedy the name Sphyrelata,beaten withthe hammer ; the process was probably the same as that men-ioned

for earlybronze works which were beaten out in platesby a similar process, and not cast. The most famous examplewas the colossal Zeus dedicated by the Cypselidsof Corinth atOlympia. The partialr completegildingf statues in inferiormaterials,not only bronze but also marble, was common enoughat all times.

(4) Terra-cotta,tc. Greek terra-cottas reallyform a subjectby themselves,which cannot be included in such a work asthis ; but they cannot be altogetheromitted, since they havein earlier times some influence on the formation of sculpturaltypes,and in later times they fall under the influence of various

^ In earlybronzes the core is often left inside ; see Furtwiingler,lympia IV.Bronzen, text, p. 9.

^ Baumeister, Denkmiiler, p. 506 ; also frontispieceo I\Iurray'sHistory ofGreek Sculjdurc.


61/589

INTRODUCTION 27

artists or artistic tendencies,and so preserve sometimes whatwould otherwise have been altogetherost to us. At the sametime, monumental sculpturein terra-cotta seems to have been\cry rare in Greece itself,though it was pretty common inItaly many terra-cotta statues of life size or largerhave beenfound in Cyprus and there are the remains of at least one onthe Acropolisat Athens in veiy archaic style.

The greatmajorityof Greek terra-cottas are either reliefs orsmall statuettes, and in almost all cases these are cast from amould, though details and accessories were often added with theliand ; in the case of statuettes it was usual to mould the frontonly,and either to leave the back plainor to model it roughly

hand. The great distinction between this use of moulds andwhat we find in the case of bronzes is that the moulds for terra-ottas

were frequentlyused againand again,not once only infact,that the productionof terra-cottas was regardedas a com-ercial

handicraft rather than as an art. The head, the arms,and other parts,such as the wings of winged figures,ere oftenmoulded separately,nd fixed into their placeafterwards ; andthus it was possibleto produce considerable variety even infigurescast from the same mould. The painting,oo, which wasusually applied to terra-cottas leaves room for considerablevariety.

Copies of statues by known artists are very rarely,butoccasionally,ound in terra-cotta. Thus there is in Athens afree copy of the Hermes of Praxiteles ; ^ and a copy of theDiadumenus of Polyclitus,eproduced in the Hellenic Journal,PL Ixi.,is,if genuine,among the finest antiqueterra-cottas thathave survived. The great number of terra-cotta figuresfoundat Tanagra and elsewhere in Greece, though many of them ofwonderful grace and beauty, do not give us much help in re-toring

the great works of art of the periodto which theybelong,mostly the fourth and third centuries B.C. Nor are thelater and more florid works from Myrina and elsewhere in AsiaMinor of more use for our present purpose.

Statuettes in glazedware or faience are not very common,and are mostly made under foreigninfluence,chieflyEgyptian.Some of the finest specimens were probablymade in Egyptitself. But even if these are of purely Greek work,they are not, any more than terra-cottas,of any great value

1 'E0.'Apx.1S92, PI. 7.


62/589

^

28 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTURE [Ias part of the monumental evidence as to the historyof Greeksculpture. Il

(5)The ApplicationfColour to Sculpture} There islittledoubtthat the intention of the primitivertist was to imitate his livingmodels as nearly as possiblein colour as well as in form ; but itis the great erit of the early Greek sculptor to appreciatethe difficultyf tliis attempt, and to limit his endeavoursaccordingly.Convention is the natural result of this artisticfeeling that is to say, the artist is led to select from_ theTnBnite varietyof nature such set types of form and suchschemes of colour as he feels himself aljle to deal with ; it is thischaracteristic beyond all others that distinguishesthe firstpromise of an artistic style from the crude attempts of thebarbariam Tei'ra-cottasand sculpturesn rough stone show usthe early use of such a scheme of colours,ore or less con-entional

in itsapplication.he commonest arrangement, whichwe find continuingin terra-cotta through all periods,is to use iwhite for the skin of women, and flesh colour varying from ipink to reddish-brown for that of men ; dark red for the hairand eyes, and red and white,as well as other simplecolours,forthe draperyand accessories. But there is no fixed rule aboutthis : thus in the rough stone architectural sculptureson theAcropolisat Athens we see dark blue,probablyused as a con-entional

substitute for black,applied to the beard and hair ofmen, and to the whole coat of a horse or a bull ; and the eyesof the Typhon are green.

The introduction of marble probably had the greatest in-luencein the modification of this system. In some early

marble works we still find the old system preservedof coveringthe whole surface with colour. But for the skin of femalefiguresthe white surface of the marble already oftered therequiredcolour without the addition of any further pigment ;and when an opportunityhad thus been given for appreciatingthe exquisiteexture of the marble and the beauty with whichit adapted itself to the renderingof the human skin,the result^was inevitable. We accordinglyind the plan of colouringthewhole surface of a statue almost entirelygiven up in the best(period;and although no fixed and general rules can be laiddown as to the practicef Greek sculptorsin this matter, the

' See Rniitli's Diet. Ant., art. I'ictiira ; 15ainiieisler,rt. Polycliromie,where other references are given.


63/589


64/589

f30 A HANDBOOK OF GEEEK SCULPTURE '

especiallyf earlyperiod,re now fairlywell known to us.This is due to the discoveryof the statues on the Acropolis,which preserve to a remarkable degreetheir originalolouringthese are so numerous that it ispossibleo have confidence in thee^ idence they afford. Previouslyhe examplesof clear traces ofcolour upon free statues were so scanty,and belongedmostly to50 late a period,that it was dangerousto draw inferences from

pthem as to the regularpracticef Greek sculpture.In the earlymarble statues on the Acropolise find the lai'geurfaces of the

,marble invariablyeft plain,while onlyborders or details are

Iadded, mostly in rich dark colours. Thus the hair is usuallypainteddark ^red . and red is also appliedo the lipsand theirisof the eye : the eyebrows,the outlines of the eyelids,ndthe iris,nd the whole of the pupil are painted with a darkpigment,almost black,thus remindingus of the statement ofPlato, that in statues the most beautiful part of the humanbody, the eye, was usuallypainted black. The draperyalso isleft in its largemasses in the natural colour of the marble.Xo garment is coloured all over, unless only a very small part

hoi it shows, and thus it does not ofler a broad mass of colour,{.buterely a patch which serves to contrast with the colourIand texture of the marble displayedthrough the rest of thef statue. A similar efiect is produced by the borders of rich\ colour and designwhich we see on almost every garment, andliythe ornaments scattered over their surface. The effect ofthis painted decoration is extremelyrich and harmonious ; thetexture and colour of the marble are not obscured,but enhancedby contrast ; and we have from these sculpturesone of theunpleasantimpressionwhich is given,or example,by a colouredcast. The reason is not far to seek. In an object coveredcompletelywith an opaque coat of colour,the true surface ishidden, and there consequentlyrises a suspicionof an inferiormaterial. Here the textui'e and quality of the marble isemphasisedrather than obscured.

We have no reason to suppose that the rules as to colouringthat we have observed in this instance were observed by Greeksculptorsf aU schools and periods.We have, indeed,directevidence to the contrary. For example,in a statue of Aphro-ite

from Pompeii, which leans on a draped idol of archaisticwork, imitated from the type preservedin the Acropolisstatues,1 Baumeister, Denkm., PL xlyiL ; A. Z. 1881, PL 7.


65/589

INTRODUCTION 31

the drapery of this archaistic figureis coloured all over, boththe inner and the outer garment; and the drapery of thegoddess herself is also coloured, though in paler and moredelicate tints. In the archaistic figurethe artist seems to havechosen purposelythe priniitiveracticef colouringhe wholesurface,though we have seen it was soon given up in marblework. As to his own statue it is harder to speak; he mayhave been followinga practicecommon in his time, of whichother examples are preserved; it is indeed possiblethat it wasnot unknown at any period to give a wash of colour,tintingbut not obscuringthe surface of the marble even on the nudeparts, before the process of polishingwith wax. But theevidence that we possess tends to show that such colouringasunusual. In any case, we may be sure that the applicationfcolour,if not always accordingto the rules we have olDserved,'was always within strict artistic limits,and that there was notendency in a Greek marble statue to resemble a wax-workimage. That the process was not a purelymechanical one, butrequired the utmost artistic skill and taste, is sufficientlyprovedby the fact that the great painterNicias did not considerit beneath him to undertake the circumUtio,he addingof detailsin colour, to the statues of Praxiteles ; and that Praxitelesesteemed most highlysuch of his works as had the advantageof this painter'sinishingouch.

The gildingof statues was a more mechanical process, andrequiredfrequentrenewing,as we learn from inscriptionsndother evidence. Gildingwas appliednot only to bronze, butalso to marble ; thus we hear that the Eros of Thespiae,byPraxiteles,had giltwings,though the taste that permittedthiswas impugned by some later critics; and in the case of the?ame artist's Hermes, the only remains of colour found at itsdiscovery were some traces of red and gildingupon thesandal.

In relief work colour was more freelyused than in sculpturein the round. In architectural friezes,or example, the wholerelief was often regardedas a coloured member, contrastingiththe white surfaces around, and therefore both drapery and fleshwere sometimes coloured in their broad masses. The backgroundwas usuallypainted red or blue ; details and accessories werevery frequentlyadded in colour only; indeed,in some cases theartist trusted quiteas much to the colour as to the relief for


66/589

32 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULrTURE

the effect he wished to produce. This is especiallyhe case witharchitectural sculpture. Greek architecture was assisted bypaintingin just the same way as Greek sculpture that is tosay, the broad masses and principalsupportingmembers, suchas the columns and the architrave,were left in the naturalcolour of the marble, while mouldingsand other details werepicked out in colour. To harmonise with the effect thusproduced,we should expect the largersculpturalgroups, pedi-ents,

etc.,that ornament a building,o be left also withoutcolour in their broad masses, and to have details added bypainting and this appears to have been usually the case.^The wall which formed a background to such groups waspaintedblue or red,justas the ground of a relief.

A few passages in ancient authors seem at first sighttoimply that some colouringrocess was appliedalso to sculpturein bronze. Thus we hear of the pale hue givenby SiTanion tohis bronze statue of the dying Jocasta ; and we hear in anotherinstance of a reddish flush beingimparted by an admixture ofiron with the bronze. It is obvious that in a statue cast inone piecethere can be no questionof givinga local colour tosome part by any such process. The stories in questionmaybe due merely to a literal interpretationy later compilersofwhat was originallypurely rhetorical description,uch as themaiden blush that Himerius^ describes on the face of theLemnian Athena also a bronze work. But in other casgs.either a mixture of bronze of an appropriatecolour may havebeen selected for the whole statue, or else some parts may havebeen cast separatelyand inserted. Such insertions,ften insilver,gave much the same effect in a bronze statue as thepaintingof details on marble. In particular,he eyes wereusuallyof inserted materials a proceedingoccasionallyrans-erred

also to marble. But any attempt to apply a pigmentto the surface of a bronze statue seems out of the question.On the other hand, gildingeither of the whole or of parts wasvery common.

(6) The Use ofPointingfrom a Finished Model. In the case ofbronze statues, if cast and not made by the primitiveham-ering

process, a full-sized finished model, in some easilyworked and perishablematerial,is an obvious necessity.And

' It is attested,e.g., in the case of the Aeginetansculptures.2 S. Q. 761.


67/589

INTRODUCTION 33

we have seen that in the case of gold and ivoryworks alsoa full-sizedmodel seems to be technicallyndispensable.Whenwe come to consider marble sculpture,he case is by no means.so clear. The practiceamong modern sculptorss to preparefirst a full-sizedand finished model in clay; from this a cast isusuallymade in plasteror some other more durable material.On the cast a number of pointsare marked ; these pointsarethen transferred to the block of marble by a mechanical})rocess of measurement, and are drilled in to . the requireddepth. The superfluousmarble is cut away until the pointsare reached,and then nothingremains to be done but to givethe last finish to the surface of the marble. This last processought of course to be the work of the sculptor'swn hand,thoughit is now not infrequentlyeft to skilled assistants ; butthe more mechanical work of pointingand chisellingway thebulk of the marble is generallyone by trained workmen. Itis clear that on a statue made by this process, if left un-inished,

some trace of the measured points(calleduntelli)s])rettysure to remain; and it is thus easy to ascertain whetherthey formed part of the method followed by ancient sculptors.And in fact we can see such puntelliupon several unfinishedworks of sculpture. But these mostlybelongto Hellenistic orKoman times ; and even on works of this later periodthey arenot always to be seen, while on earlier monuments they seemto be almost,if not entirely,nknown. If we turn to ourliteraryuthorities,ll indications point in the same direction.Thus we are told that Pasiteles,who worked in Rome in thefirst century B.C., asserted modellingin clay to be the motherof all kinds of sculpture and that he never made a statuewithout first preparinga model in clay. Such a specifictate-ent

in his case seems to imply that the practiceas by nomeans universal. And Arcesilaus,hose claymodels are saidto have been sold at a higher rate than the finished works ofother artists,as a contemporary of Pasiteles. Pliny saysagain that it was due to the invention or the example ofLysistratus,he brother of Lysippus,that the practiceecameso prevalentthat no statue was made without the construction

', of a claymodel.- We are therefore prepared to find that inIi ' Not, e.g., on the unfinished parts of the small frieze from Pergamus.j '^ XXXV. 153, crevitque res in tantum ut nulla signa statuaeve sine argilla1fiereut. These words are clear enough,but they do not follow on what has just D


68/589

34 A HANDBOOK OF GREEK SCULPTUREI

unfinished statues of earlier date,not only is there no signofpunfeUi,but the whole system of cuttingis one that impliesthe absence of such mechanical help; the sculptoreems to becuttinghis way down to his statue with a caution that wouldnot be needed if the depth to which he was to cut in each placewere alreadymeasured and marked out.

It does not of course follow,because no mechanical systemof pointingas used,that there was no claymodel at all; thisis a questionon which we cannot expect to find much evidence,and different opinionsmay be held,accordingo various viewsas to the probabilityf the case. From the earliest timemodellingin claywas customary, and a material so easy towork must always have been preferableor the first efforts ofthe learner. But in early times the number of sculpturaltypes was so limited that there was reallyno need for thesculptorto make a model in claybefore beginningto carve a'statue in stone or marble. The type was fixed for him, andvery possiblyalreadybefore his eyes in a conventional model.Such varietys he might introduce in his work was rather inthe study of detail than in the generalconformation of thefigure and althoughhe may often have made a sketch in clayof what he had observed in nature, there is no reason tosuppose that he worked this into a full-sizedand completeclaymodel before he began cuttinginto his block of marble. Whenwe come to the periodof artistic freedom,the conditions arealtered ; at such a time it seems obvious that a sculptorouldembody his firstconceptionf a work of art in a sketch in clayor wax, but it does not follow that he made a finished andfull-sized model in one of these materials before he attackedhis marble,which he cut, as we have seen, more or less free-and.

A full-sized clayor plastermodel to work from is notin such a case indisj^ensable,houghdoubtless the more cautiousand studious among sculptorsould usuallypreferto have one.But we must remember that the confidence and freedom given

,to an ancient sculjitory the force of tradition,ereditarykill,and training,s well as by the constant observation of the livingand moving human form in the palaestrand elsewhere,gavehim a great advantageover the modern artist,ho is mainlyprecedec),hich refers to takingcasts from statues. Either something is lost,or Plinyin compilinghas omitted somethingfrom his authority probablythelatter.


69/589

INTRODUCTION 35

dependent on the study of posed models. And, moreover, thee;ise with which the finest marble could be obtained made it afur less serious loss if some few blocks were spoiledthan is thecase now, when fine blocks have to be procuredfrom a distanceand bought at fancyprices. There is nothingimpossiblen asculptor'sorking without a full-sized model ; Michael Angelo,fur example,is recorded to have done so often. And althoughthere probably was no set custom in the matter, and thepracticeof different artists varied according to their sur-oundings

or their individual facility,t is likelythat Greeksculptorsf the finest period of art often dispensedwith any.such help. In Jater times, when geniusand inspirationereless frequent,and art was more a matter of academic study,we find that the use of finished claymodels became as universalas it is at the present day, and that their form was transferredto the marble by the same mechanical process that is now inuse. The puntelli,owever, seem, from their comparativelylimited number, to have been rather a help to the sculptorincarvingthe marble in which his idea was to be finallymbodied,than as a purely mechanical means of producing a marble fac-

,simile of the claymodel that is too often,in our day, the finalembodiment of the sculptor'swn work.

(c)Sculpture Decorative,rchitectural,reeIf the whole abundance of Greek sculptureere available for

our study as it was in the days of Pausanias,it would not oftenbe necessary for us to go beyond the bounds of free sculpture.But the circumstances which have preserved to us the scantyremnants that we stillpossess have enhanced the historical valueof much that must be regarded,n a sense, as decorative work.Owing to their positionin the building,nd the material ofwhich they were made, the sculpturesthat ornamented thepediment and frieze of a temple have in many cases survived,when all the statues that stood in the same temple or werededicated in the surrounding precincthave been destroyed.And again,even if these more portablestatues were removedand not destroyed,and so are preserved to our time, wefrequentlyhave no clue to guide us in seekingto ascertainwhen or where they were made ; while the sculpturalecorationof a temple is often recorded by historical evidence,or can be


70/589


dated by the architectural forms of the buildingitself. Wemust, however, in making use of architectural or decorativesculptureas evidence for the history of art, remember theconditions prescribedby its surroundings,nd allow for theirinfluence upon the characteristics which we observe.

In the earliest days of Greek sculpturethere seems to havebeen littlebut rude,practicallynsculptured,images of the gods,and decorative relief-work,mostly in metal or wood. It wasfrom the dedications set up in temple precincts,r the monu-ents

erected over graves, that free sculptureseems to havebeen developed; but the influence of the decorative woi k wasalso very great. By it many types were preserved,if notoriginated,hich afterwards came to be adopted into the re-ertoire

of Greek sculpture and it produced a skill in vv^orkingmetal, and even a studyof nature in detail,which were of thegreatestservice to the advance of art. There is a whole seriesof these decorative works, beginningwith the shields and otherthingsdescribed by Homer, and leadingup to such compositionsas the chest of Cypselus,the Amyclaean throne,and even thethrone of Zeus at Olympia,with which Ave shall have to dealin turn.

The sculpturalecoration of temples occupiesan even moreprominent placein the historyof Greek art,and in some casesofi ersthe most trustworthy evidence we possess as to someparticularsculptoror school ; the metopes of Se

a handbook of greek sculpture 1000002121

Documents