PAINTING.PAINTING. (2600 years old.)ToList
PAINTING. (2600 years old.)ToList
Parrhasius excelled in giving a roundness and a beautiful contour to his figures, and was remarkable for the richness and variety of his creations. His numerous pictures of gods and heroes attained the highest consideration in art. He was overcome, however, in a pictorial contest, in which the subject was the contest of Ulysses and Ajax for the arms of Achilles, by the ingenious Timanthes, in whose sacrifice of Iphigenia the ancients admired the expression of grief carried to that pitch of intensity at which art had only dared to hint. The most striking feature in the picture was the concealment of the face of Agamemnon in his mantle. (The concealment of the face of Agamemnon in this picture has been generally considered as a "trick" or ingenious invention of Timanthes, when it was the result of a fundamental law in Greek art—to represent alone what was beautiful, and never to present to the eye anything repulsive or disagreeable; the features of a father convulsed with grief would not have been a pleasing object to gaze on; hence the painter, fully conscious of the laws of his art, concealed the countenance of Agamemnon.) Timanthes was distinguished for his invention and expression. Before all, however, ranks the great Apelles, who united the advantages of his native Ionia—grace, sensual charms, and rich coloring—with the scientific accuracy of the Sicyonian school. The most prominent characteristic of his style was grace (charis), a quality which he himself avowed as peculiarly his, and which serves to unite all the other gifts and faculties which the painter requires; perhaps in none of his pictures was it exhibited in such perfection as in his famous Anadyomene, in which Aphrodite is represented rising out of the sea, and wringing the wet out of her hair. But heroic subjects were likewise adapted to his genius, especially grandly-conceived portraits, such as the numerous likenesses ofAlexander, by whom he was warmly patronized. He not only represented Alexander with the thunderbolt in his hand, but he even attempted, as the master in light and shade, to paint thunderstorms, probably at the same time as natural scenes and mythological personifications. The Anadyomene, originally painted for the temple of Æsculapius, at Cos, was transferred by Augustus to the temple of D. Julius, at Rome, where, however, it was in a decayed state even at the time of Nero. Contemporaneously with him flourished Protogenes and Nicias. Protogenes was both a painter and a statuary, and was celebrated for the high finish of his works. His master-piece was the picture of Ialysus, the tutelary hero of Rhodes, where he lived. He is said to have spent seven years on it. Nicias, of Athens, was celebrated for the delicacy with which he painted females. He was also famous as an encaustic painter, and was employed by Praxiteles to apply his art to his statues. The glorious art of these masters, as far as regards light, tone, and local colors, is lost to us, and we know nothing of it except from obscure notices and later imitations. It is not thus necessary to speak at length of the various schools of painting in Greece, their works being all lost, the knowledge of the characteristics peculiar to each school would be at the present day perfectly useless. Painting had to follow the invariable law of all development; having reached a period of maturity, it followed, as a necessary consequence, that the period of decline should begin. The art of this period of refinement, Mr. Wornum writes, which has been termed the Alexandrian, because the most celebrated artist of this period lived about the time of Alexander the Great, was the last of progression, or acquisition, but it only added variety of effect to the tones it could not improve, and was principally characterized by the diversity of the styles of so many contemporary artists. The decadence of the arts immediately succeeded, the necessary consequence, when, instead of excellence, variety and originalitybecame the end of the artist. The tendencies which are peculiar to this period gave birth sometimes to pictures which ministered to a low sensuality; sometimes to works which attracted by their effects of light, and also to caricatures and travesties of mythological subjects. The artists of this period were under the necessity of attracting attention by novelty and variety; thus rhyparography, and the lower classes of art, attained the ascendency, and became the characteristic styles of the period. In these Pyreieus was pre-eminent; he was termed rhyparographos, on account of the mean quality of his subjects. After the destruction of Corinth by Mummius and the spoliation of Athens by Sylla the art of painting experienced a rapid and total decay.
The Philae IslandsEngraved & Printed by Illman Brothers.THE PHILÆ ISLANDSToListFOR THE MUSEUM OF ANTIQUITY
Engraved & Printed by Illman Brothers.
THE PHILÆ ISLANDSToList
FOR THE MUSEUM OF ANTIQUITY
We shall now make a few extracts from Mr. Wornum's excellent article on the vehicles, materials, colors, and methods of painting used by the Greeks.
The Greeks painted with wax, resins, and in water-colors, to which they gave a proper consistency, according to the material upon which they painted, with gum, glue, and the white of egg; gum and glue were the most common.
They painted upon wood, clay, plaster, stone, parchment, and canvas. They generally painted upon panels or tables, and very rarely upon walls; and an easel, similar to what is now used, was common among the ancients. These panels, when finished, were fixed into frames of various descriptions and materials, and encased in walls. The ancients used also a palette very similar to that used by the moderns, as is sufficiently attested by a fresco painting from Pompeii, which represents a female painting a copy of Hermes, for a votive tablet, with a palette in her left hand.
The earlier Grecian masters used only four colors: the earth of Melos for white; Attic ochre for yellow; Sinopis, an earth from Pontus, for red; and lamp-black; and it was with these simple elements that Zeuxis, Polygnotus, and others of that age,executed their celebrated works. By degrees new coloring substances were found, such as were used by Apelles and Protogenes.
So great, indeed, is the number of pigments mentioned by ancient authors, and such the beauty of them, that it is very doubtful whether, with all the help of modern science, modern artists possess any advantage in this respect over their predecessors.
We now give the following list of colors, known to be generally used by ancient painters:
Red.—The ancient reds were very numerous, cinnabar, vermilion, bisulphuret of mercury, called also by Pliny and Vitruvius, minium. The cinnabaris indica, mentioned by Pliny and Dioscorides, was what is vulgarly called dragon's blood, the resin obtained from various species of the calamus palm. Miltos seems to have had various significations; it was used for cinnabaris, minium, red lead, and rubrica, red ochre. There were various kinds of rubricæ; all were, however, red oxides, of which the best were the Lemnian, from the Isle of Lemnos, and the Cappadocian, called by the Romans rubrica sinopica, from Sinope in Paphlagonia. Minium, red oxide of lead, red lead, was called by the Romans cerussa usta, and, according to Vitruvius, sandaracha.
The Roman sandaracha seems to have had various significations. Pliny speaks of the different shades of sandaracha; there was also a compound color of equal parts of sandaracha and rubrica calcined, called sandyx, which Sir H. Davy supposed to approach our crimson in tint; in painting it was frequently glazed with purple, to give it additional lustre.
Yellow.—Yellow-ochre, hydrated peroxide of iron, thesilof the Romans, formed the base of many other yellows, mixed with various colors and carbonate of lime. Ochre was procured from different parts—the Attic was considered the best; sometimes the paler sort of sandaracha was used for yellow.
Green.—Chrysocolla, which appears to have been green carbonate of copper, or malachite (green verditer), was the green most approved of by the ancients; there was also an artificial kind which was made from clay impregnated with sulphate of copper (blue vitriol) rendered green by a yellow dye. The commonest and cheapest colors were the Appianum, which was a clay, and the creta viridis, the common green earth of Verona.
Blue.—The ancient blues were very numerous; the principal of these was cœruleum, azure, a species of verditer, or blue carbonate of copper, of which there were many varieties. The Alexandrian was the most valued, as approaching the nearest to ultramarine. It was also manufactured at Pozzuoli. This imitation was called cœlon. Armenium was a metallic color, and was prepared by being ground to an impalpable powder. It was of a light blue color. It has been conjectured that ultramarine (lapis lazuli) was known to the ancients under the name of Armenium, from Armenia, whence it was procured. It is evident, however, from Pliny's description, that the "sapphirus" of the ancients was the lapis lazuli of the present day. It came from Media.
Indigo, indicum, was well known to the ancients.
Purple.—The ancients had several kinds of purple, purpurissimum, ostrum, hysginum, and various compound colors. Purpurissimum was made from creta argentaria, a fine chalk or clay, steeped in a purple dye, obtained from the murex. In color it ranged between minium and blue, and included every degree in the scale of purple shades. The best sort came from Pozzuoli. Purpurissimum indicum was brought from India. It was of a deep blue, and probably was the same as indigo. Ostrum was a liquid color, to which the proper consistence was given by adding honey. It was produced from the secretion of a fish called ostrum, and differed in tint according to the country from whence it came; being deeper and more violet whenbrought from the northern, redder when from the southern coasts of the Mediterranean. The Roman ostrum was a compound of red ochre and blue oxide of copper. Hysginum, according to Vitruvius, is a color between scarlet and purple. The celebrated Tyrian dye was a dark, rich purple, of the color of coagulated blood, but, when held against the light, showed a crimson hue. It was produced by a combination of the secretions of the murex and buccinum. In preparing the dye the buccinum was used last, the dye of the murex being necessary to render the colors fast, while the buccinum enlivened by its tint of red the dark hue of the murex. Sir H. Davy, on examining a rose-colored substance, found in the baths of Titus, which in its interior had a lustre approaching to that of carmine, considered it a specimen of the best Tyrian purple. The purpura, as mentioned in Pliny, was an amethyst or violet color.
Brown.—Ochra usta, burnt ochre.—The browns were ochres calcined, oxides of iron and manganese, and compounds of ochres and blacks.
Black.—Atramentum, or black, was of two sorts, natural and artificial. The natural was made from a black earth, or from the secretion of the cuttle-fish, sepia. The artificial was made of the dregs of wine carbonized, calcined ivory, or lamp-black. The atramentum indicum, mentioned by Pliny, was probably the Chinese Indian ink.
White.—The ordinary Greek white was melinum, an earth from the Isle of Melos; for fresco-painting the best was the African parœtonium. There was also a white earth of Eretria and the annularian white. Carbonate of lead, or white lead, cerussa, was apparently not much used by the ancient painters. It has not been found in any of the remains of painting in Roman ruins.
Methods of Painting.—There were two distinct classes of painting practiced by the ancients—in water colors and in wax,both of which were practiced in various ways. Of the former the principal were fresco, al fresco; and the various kinds of distemper (a tempera), with glue, with the white of egg, or with gums (a guazzo); and with wax or resins when these were rendered by any means vehicles that could be worked with water. Of the latter the principal was through fire, termed encaustic.
Fresco was probably little employed by the ancients for works of imitative art, but it appears to have been the ordinary method of simply coloring walls, especially amongst the Romans. Coloring al fresco, in which the colors were mixed simply in water, as the term implies, was applied when the composition of the stucco on the walls was still wet (udo tectorio), and on that account was limited to certain colors, for no colors except earths can be employed in this way.
The fresco walls, when painted, were covered with an encaustic varnish, both to heighten the colors and to preserve them from the injurious effects of the sun or the weather. Vitruvius describes the process as a Greek practice. When the wall was colored and dry, Punic wax, melted and tempered with a little oil, was rubbed over it with a hard brush (seta); this was made smooth and even by applying acauteriumor an iron pan, filled with live coals, over the surface, as near to it as was just necessary to melt the wax; it was then rubbed with a candle (wax) and a clean cloth. In encaustic painting the wax colors wereburnt intothe ground by means of a hot iron (called cauterium) or pan of hot coals being held near the surface of the picture. The mere process of burning in constitutes the whole difference between encaustic and the ordinary method of painting with wax colors.
We shall now say a few words with regard to the much canvassed question of painting or coloring statues. Its antiquity and universality admit of no doubt. Indeed, the practice of painting statues is a characteristic of a primitive andworkmanship of clay or wood. It was a survival of the old religious practices of daubing the early statues of the gods with vermilion, and was done to meet the superstitious tastes of the uneducated. Statues for religious purposes may have been painted in obedience to a formula prescribed by religion, but statues as objects of art, on which the sculptor exhibited all his genius and taste, were unquestionably executed in the pure and uncolored marble alone. In the chryselephantine, or ivory statues of Jove and Minerva, by Phidias, art was made a handmaid to religion. Phidias himself would have preferred to have executed them in marble.
We may further remark that form, in its purest ideal, being the chief aim of sculpture, any application of color, which would detract from the purity and ideality of this purest of the arts, could never be agreeable to refined taste. Coloring sculpture and giving it a life-like reality is manifestly trenching on the province of painting, and so departing from the true principle of sculpture, which is to give form in its most perfect and idealized development. We must also consider that sculpture in marble, by its whiteness, is calculated for the display of light and shade. For this reason statues and bas-reliefs were placed either in the open light to receive the direct rays of the sun, or in underground places, or thermæ, where they received their light either from an upper window, or, by night, from the strong light of a lamp, the sculptor having for that purpose studied the effects of the shadows. It must also be remembered that the statues in Greek and Roman temples received their light from the upper part of the building, many of the temples being hypæthral, thus having the benefit of a top light, the sculptor's chief aim. Color in these statues or bas-reliefs would have tended to mar the contrasts of light and shade, and blended them too much; for example, color a photograph of a statue, which exhibits a marked contrast of light and shade, and it will tend to confuse and blendthe two. The taste for polychrome sculpture in the period of the decline of art was obviously but a returning to the primitive imperfection of art, when an attempt was made to produce illusion in order to please the uneducated taste of the vulgar.
The Romans derived their knowledge of painting from the Etruscans, their ancestors and neighbors; the first Grecian painters who came to Italy are said to have been brought over by Demaratus, the father of Tarquinius Priscus, King of Rome; at all events Etruria appears to have exercised extensive influence over the arts of Rome during the reign of the Tarquins. Tradition attributes to them the first works which were used to adorn the temples of Rome, and, according to Pliny, not much consideration was bestowed either on the arts or on the artists. Fabius, the first among the Romans, had some painting executed in the temple of Salus, from which he received the name of Pictor. The works of art brought from Corinth by Mummius, from Athens by Sulla, and from Syracuse by Marcellus, introduced a taste for paintings and statues in their public buildings, which eventually became an absorbing passion with many distinguished Romans. Towards the end of the republic Rome was full of painters. Julius Cæsar, Agrippa, Augustus, were among the earliest great patrons of artists. Suetonius informs us that Cæsar expended great sums in the purchase of pictures by the old masters. Under Augustus, Marcus Ludius painted marine subjects, landscape decorations, and historic landscape as ornamentation for the apartments of villas and country houses. He invented that style of decoration which we now call arabesque or grotesque. It spread rapidly, insomuch that the baths of Titus and Livia, the remains discovered at Cumæ, Pozzuoli, Herculaneum, Stabiæ, Pompeii, in short, whatever buildings about that date have been found in good preservation, afford numerous and beautiful examples of it. At this time, also, a passion for portrait painting prevailed; an art which flatteredtheir vanity was more suited to the tastes of the Romans than the art which could produce beautiful and refined works similar to those of Greece. Portraits must have been exceedingly numerous; Varro made a collection of the portraits of 700 eminent men. Portraits, decorative and scene painting, seem to have engrossed the art. The example, or rather the pretensions, of Nero must also have contributed to encourage painting in Rome; but Roman artists were, however, but few in number; the victories of the consuls, and the rapine of the prætors, were sufficient to adorn Rome with all the master-pieces of Greece and Italy. They introduced the fashion of having a taste for the beautiful works of Greek art. At a later period, such was the corrupt state of taste, that painting was almost left to be practiced by slaves, and the painter was estimated by the quantity of work that he could do in a day.
The remains of painting found at Pompeii, Herculaneum, and in the baths of Titus, at Rome, are the only paintings which can give us any idea of the coloring and painting of the ancients, which, though they exhibit many beauties, particularly in composition, are evidently the works of inferior artists in a period of decline. At Pompeii there is scarcely a house the walls of which are not decorated with fresco paintings. The smallest apartments were lined with stucco, painted in the most brilliant and endless variety of colors, in compartments simply tinted with a light ground, surrounded by an ornamental margin, and sometimes embellished with a single figure or subject in the center, or at equal distances. These paintings are very frequently historical or mythological, but embrace every variety of subject, some of the most exquisite beauty. Landscape painting was never a favorite with the ancients, and if ever introduced in a painting, was subordinate. The end and aim of painting among the ancients was to represent and illustrate the myths of the gods, the deeds of heroes, andimportant historical events, hence giving all prominence to the delineation of the human form. Landscape, on the other hand, illustrated nothing, represented no important event deserving of record, and was thus totally without significance in a Grecian temple or pinacotheca. In an age of decline, as at Pompeii, it was employed for mere decorative purposes. Many architectural subjects are continually found in which it is easy to trace the true principles of perspective, but they are rather indicated than minutely expressed or accurately displayed; whereas in most instances a total want of the knowledge of this art is but too evident. Greek artists seem to have been employed; indeed, native painters were few, while the former everywhere abounded, and their superiority in design must have always insured them the preference.
The subjects of Roman mural paintings are usually Greek myths; in the composition and style we see Greek conception, modified by Roman influence. The style of drawing is rather dexterous than masterly; rapidity of execution seems to be more prized than faithful, conscientious representation of the truth of nature; the drawing is generally careless, and effects are sometimes produced by tricks and expedients, which belong rather to scene-painting than to the higher branches of art. It must not, however, be forgotten that the majority of these pictures were architectural decorations, not meant to be regarded as independent compositions, but as parts of larger compositions, in which they were inserted as in a frame. As examples of ancient coloring they are of the highest interest, and much may be learnt from them in reference to the technical materials and processes employed by ancient artists.
page decoration 8
We do not intend to enter here on the history of sculpture in all its phases, but to give the distinctive features which characterize the different styles of Egyptian, Greek, and Roman sculpture, as they are visible in statues of the natural or colossal size, in statues of lesser proportion, and lastly in busts and bas-reliefs.
We shall give also the styles of each separate nation which prevailed at each distinct age or epoch, styles which mark the stages of the development of the art of sculpture in all countries. Sculpture, like architecture and painting, indeed all art, had an indigenous and independent evolution in all countries, all these arts springing up naturally, and taking their origin alike everywhere in the imitative faculty of man. They had their stages of development in the ascending and descending scales, their rise, progress, culminating point, decline and decay, their cycle of development; the sequence of these stages being necessarily developed wherever the spirit of art has arisen, and has had growth and progress. The first and most important step in examining a work of ancient sculpture is to distinguish with certainty whether it is of Egyptian, Etruscan, Greek, or Roman workmanship; and this distinction rests entirely on a profound knowledge of the style peculiar to each of those nations. The next step is, from its characteristic features, to distinguish what period, epoch, or stage of the development of the art of that particular nation it belongs to. We shall further give the various attributes and characteristics of the gods, goddesses, and other mythologicalpersonages which distinguish the various statues visible in Egyptian, Etruscan, Greek, and Roman sculpture.
This enumeration will be found of use in the many sculpture galleries of the various museums both at home and abroad.
Manattemptedsculpture long before hestudiedarchitecture; a simple hut, or a rude house, answered every purpose as a place of abode, and a long time elapsed before he sought to invent what was not demanded by necessity.
Architecture is a creation of the mind; it has no model in nature, and it requires great imaginative powers to conceive its ideal beauties, to make a proper combination of parts, and to judge of the harmony of forms altogether new and beyond the reach of experience. But the desire in man to imitate and to record what has passed before his eyes, in short, to transfer the impression from his own mind to another, is natural in every stage of society; and however imperfectly he may succeed in representing the objects themselves, his attempts to indicate their relative position, and to embody the expression of his own ideas, are a source of the highest satisfaction.
As the wish to record events gave the first, religion gave the second impulse to sculpture. The simple pillar of wood or stone, which was originally chosen to represent the deity, afterwards assumed the human form, the noblest image of the power that created it; though theHermæof Greece were not, as some have thought, the origin of statues, but were borrowed from the mummy-shaped gods of Egypt.
Pausanias thinks that "all statues were in ancient times of wood, particularly those made in Egypt;" but this must have been at a period so remote as to be far beyond the known history of that country; though it is probable that when the arts were in their infancy the Egyptians were confined to statues of that kind; and they occasionally erected wooden figures in their temples, even till the times of the latter Pharaohs.
Long after men had attempted to make out the parts of the figure, statues continued to be very rude; the arms were placed directly down the side of the thighs, and the legs were united together; nor did they pass beyond this imperfect state in Greece, until the age of Dædalus. Fortunately for themselves and for the world, the Greeks were allowed to free themselves from old habits, while the Egyptians, at the latest periods, continued to follow the imperfect models of their early artists, and were forever prevented from arriving at excellence in sculpture; and though they made great progress in other branches of art, though they evinced considerable taste in the forms of their vases, their furniture, and even in some architectural details, they were forever deficient in ideal beauty, and in the mode of representing the natural positions of the human figure.
In Egypt the prescribed automaton character of the figures effectually prevented all advancement in the statuary's art; the limbs being straight, without any attempt at action, or, indeed, any indication of life; they were reallystatuesof the person they represented, not the person "living in marble," in which they differed entirely from those of Greece. No statue of a warrior was sculptured in the varied attitudes of attack and defence; no wrestler, nodiscobolus, no pugilist exhibited the grace, the vigor, or the muscular action of a man; nor were the beauties, the feeling, and the elegance of female forms displayed in stone: all was made to conform to the same invariable model, which confined the human figure to a few conventional postures.
A sitting statue, whether of a man or woman, was represented with the hands placed upon the knees, or held across the breast; a kneeling figure sometimes supported a small shrine or sacred emblem; and when standing the arms were placed directly down the sides of the thighs, one foot (and that always the left) being advanced beyond the other, as if in the attitude of walking, but without any attempt to separate the legs.
The oldest Egyptian sculptures on all large monuments were in low relief, and, as usual at every period, painted (obelisks and everything carved in hard stone, some funeral tablets, and other small objects, being in intaglio); and this style continued in vogue until the time of Remeses II., who introduced intaglio very generally on large monuments; and even his battle scenes at Karnac and the Memnonium are executed in this manner. The reliefs were little raised above the level of the wall; they had generally a flat surface with the edges softly rounded off, far surpassing the intaglio in effect; and it is to be regretted that the best epoch of art, when design and execution were in their zenith, should have abandoned a style so superior; which, too, would have improved in proportion to the advancement of that period.
After the accession of the twenty-sixth dynasty some attempt was made to revive the arts, which had been long neglected; and, independent of the patronage of government, the wealth of private individuals was liberally employed in their encouragement. Public buildings were erected in many parts of Egypt, and beautified with rich sculpture; the City of Sais, the royal residence of the Pharaohs of that dynasty, was adorned with the utmost magnificence, and extensive additions were made to the temples of Memphis, and even to those of the distant Thebes.
The fresh impulse thus given to art was not without effect; the sculptures of that period exhibit an elegance and beauty which might even induce some to consider them equal to the productions of an earlier age, and in the tombs of the Assaseef, at Thebes, are many admirable specimens of Egyptian art. To those, however, who understand the true feeling of this peculiar school, it is evident, that though in minuteness and finish they are deserving of the highest commendation, yet in grandeur of conception and in boldness of execution they fall far short of the sculptures of Sethos and the second Remeses.
The skill of the Egyptian artists in drawing bold and clear outlines is, perhaps, more worthy of admiration than anything connected with this branch of art, and in no place is the freedom of their drawing more conspicuous than in the figures in the unfinished part of Belzoni's tomb, at Thebes. It was in the drawing alone that they excelled, being totally ignorant of the correct mode of coloring a figure, and their painting was not an imitation of nature, but merely the harmonious combination of certain hues, which they well understood. Indeed, to this day the harmony of positive colors is thoroughly felt in Egypt and the East, and it is strange to find the little perception of it in Northern Europe, where theories take upon themselves to explain to the mind what the eye has not yet learned, as if a grammar could be written before the language is understood.
A remarkable feature of Egyptian sculpture is the frequent representation of their Kings in a colossal form. The two most famous colossi are the seated figures in the plain of Thebes. One is recognized to be the vocal Memnon (Amunoph III.) mentioned by Strabo. They are forty-seven feet high, and measure about eighteen feet three inches across the shoulders. But the grandest and largest colossal statue was the stupendous statue of King Remeses II., a Syenite granite, in the Memnonium, at Thebes. It represented the King seated on a throne, in the usual attitude of Kings, the hands resting on his knees. It is now in fragments. It measured twenty-two feet four inches across the shoulders. According to Sir G. Wilkinson, the whole mass, when entire, must have weighed about 887 tons. A colossal statue of Remeses II. lies with his face upon the ground on the site of Memphis; it was placed before the temple of Pthah. Its total height is estimated at forty-two feet eight inches, without the pedestal. It is of white siliceous limestone. Another well-known colossus is the statue of the so-called Memnon, now in the British Museum. It is supposed to be thestatue of Remeses II. It was brought by Belzoni from the Memnonium, at Thebes.
In the different epochs of Egyptian sculpture, the Egyptian artists were bound by certain fixed canons or rules of proportion to guide them in their labors, and which they were obliged to adhere to rigidly. The following are the canons of three distinct epochs: 1. The canon of the time of the pyramids, the height was reckoned at six feet from the sole of the foot to the crown of the head, and subdivisions obtained by one-half or one-third of a foot. 2. The canon from the twelfth to the twenty-second dynasty is only an extension of the first. The whole figure was contained in a number of squares of half a foot, and the whole height divided into eighteen parts. In these two canons the height above the sixth foot is not reckoned. 3. The canon of the age of Psammetici, which is mentioned by Diodorus, reckoning the entire height at twenty-one and one-fourth feet from the sole to the crown of the head, taken to the upper part. The proportions are different, but without any introduction of the Greek canon. The canon and the leading lines were originally traced in red, subsequently corrected by the principal artist in black, and the design then executed. In Egypt, almost every object of sculpture and architecture was painted. The colossal Egyptian statues are generally of granite, basalt, porphyry, or sandstone. The two colossi on the plain of Thebes are, of course, hard gritstone. The Egyptians also worked in dark and red granites, breccias, serpentines, arragonite, limestones, jaspers, feldspar, cornelian, glass, gold, silver, bronze, lead, iron, the hard woods, fir or cedar, sycamore, ebony, acacia, porcelain and ivory, and terra cotta. All objects, from the most gigantic obelisk to the minute articles of private life, are found decorated with hieroglyphics.
Egyptian sculptors were also remarkable for the correct and excellent representation of animals. They may, indeed, benoticed in their representation a freedom of hand, a choice and variety of forms, a truthfulness, and even what deserves to be called imitation, which contrast with the uniformity, the rigidity, the absence of nature and life, which human figures present. Plato mentions a law which forbade the artists to depart, in the slightest degree, in the execution of statues of the human form from the type consecrated by priestly authority. The artist, therefore, not being restricted in his study of the animal form, could thus give to his image greater variety of motion, and by imitating animals in nature, indemnify himself for the constraint he experienced when he represented Kings and priests. The two colossal lions in red granite, brought to England by the late Duke of Northumberland, may be considered as remarkably good specimens of Egyptian art, as applied to the delineation of animal forms. They evince a considerable knowledge of anatomy in the strongly-marked delineation of the muscular development. The form also is natural and easy, thus admirably expressing the idea of strength in a state of repose. They were sculptured in the reign of Amunoph III. The representations of the sacred animals, the cynocephalus, the lion, the jackal, the ram, etc., are frequently to be met with in Egyptian sculpture.
Greek.—The stages of the cycle of development of the art of sculpture in Greece may be given in five distinct periods or epochs, naming these, for greater convenience, chiefly from the name of the principal artist whose style prevailed at that period.
I.The Dædalean, or early( -580 B.C.)II.The Æginetan, or archaic(580-480 B.C.)III.The Phidian, or the grand(480-400 B.C.)IV.The Praxitelean, or the beautiful(400-250 B.C.)V.The Decline(250- )
Prior to the age of Dædalus, there was an earlier stage in the development of art, in which the want of art, which is peculiar to that early stage, was exhibited in rude attempts at therepresentation of the human figure, for similar and almost identical rude representations are attempted in the early stages of art in all countries; as the early attempts of children are nearly identical in all ages. The presence of a god was indicated in a manner akin to the Fetichism of the African, by the simplest and most shapeless objects, such as unhewn blocks of stone and by simple pillars or pieces of wood. The first attempt at representation consisted in fashioning a block of stone or wood into some semblance of the human form, and this rude attempt constituted a divinity. Of this primitive form was the Venus of Cyprus, the Cupid of Thespiæ; the Juno of Argos was fashioned in a similar rude manner from the trunk of a wild pear tree. These attempts were thus nothing more than shapeless blocks, the head, arms, and legs scarcely defined. Some of these wooden blocks are supposed to have been, in a coarse attempt at imitation, furnished with real hair, and to have been clothed with real draperies in order to conceal the imperfection of the form. The next step was to give these shapeless blocks a human form. The upper part assumed the likeness of a head, and by degrees arms and legs were marked out; but in these early imitations of the human figure the arms were, doubtless, represented closely attached to the sides; and the legs, though to a certain extent defined, were still connected and united in a common pillar.
The age of Dædalus marks an improvement in the modeling of the human figure, and in giving it life and action. This improvement in the art consisted in representing the human figure with the arms isolated from the body, the legs detached, and the eyes open; in fine, giving it an appearance of nature as well as of life, and thus introducing a principle of imitation. This important progress in the practice of the art is the characteristic feature of the school of Dædalus, for under the name of Dædalus we must understand the art of sculpture itself in its primitiveform, and in its first stage of development. According to Flaxman, the rude efforts of this age were intended to represent divinities and heroes only—Jupiter, Neptune, Hercules, and several heroic characters, had the self-same face, figure, and action; the same narrow eyes, thin lips, with the corners of the mouth turned upwards; the pointed chin, narrow loins, turgid muscles; the same advancing position of the lower limbs; the right hand raised beside the head, and the left extended. Their only distinctions were that Jupiter held the thunderbolt, Neptune the trident, and Hercules a palm branch or bow. The female divinities were clothed in draperies divided into few and perpendicular folds, their attitudes advancing like those of the male figures. The hair of both male and female statues of this period is arranged with great care, collected in a club behind, sometimes entirely curled.
Between the rudeness of the Dædalean and the hard and severe style of the Æginetan there was a transitional style, to which period the artists Dipœnus and Scyllis are assigned by Pliny. The metopes of the temple of Selinus in Sicily, the bas-reliefs representing Agamemnon, Epeus, and Talthybius, in the Louvre, the Harpy monument in the British Museum, and the Apollo of Tenea, afford examples of this style.
Æginetan.—In the Æginetan period of sculpture there was still retained in the character of the heads, in the details of the costume, and in the manner in which the beard and the hair are treated, something archaic and conventional, undoubtedly derived from the habits and teachings of the primitive school. But there prevails at the same time, in the execution of the human form, and the manner in which the nude is treated, a knowledge of anatomy, and an excellence of imitation carried to so high a degree of truth as to give convincing proofs of an advanced step and higher stage in the development of the art. The following are the principal characteristics of the Æginetanstyle, as derived from a careful examination of the statues found in Ægina, which were the undoubted productions of the school of the Æginetan period. The style in which they are executed is called Hieratic, or Archaic.
The heads, either totally destitute of expression, or all reduced to a general and conventional expression, present, in the oblique position of the eyes and mouth, that forced smile which seems to have been the characteristic feature common to all productions of this archaic style; for we find it also on the most ancient medals, and on bas-reliefs of the primitive period.
The hair, treated likewise in a systematic manner in small curls or plaits, worked with wonderful industry, imitates not real hair, but genuine wigs, a peculiarity which may be remarked on other works in the ancient style, and of Etruscan origin. The beard is indicated on the cheek by a deep mark, and is rarely worked in relief, but, in the latter case, so as to imitate a false beard, and consequently in the same system as the hair. The costume partakes of the same conventional and hieratic taste; it consists of drapery, with straight and regular folds, falling in symmetrical and parallel masses, so as to imitate the real draperies in which the ancient statues in wood were draped. These conventional forms of the drapery and hair may, therefore, be considered as deriving their origin from an imitation of the early statues in wood, the first objects of worship and of art among the Greeks, which were frequently covered with false hair, and clothed with real draperies. The muscular development observable in these figures is somewhat exaggerated, but, considering the period, is wonderfully accurate and true to nature. The genius for imitation exhibited in this style, carried as far as it is possible in the expression of the forms of the body, although still accompanied by a little meagreness and dryness, the truth of detail, the exquisite care in the execution, evince so profound a knowledge of the structure of the human body, sogreat a readiness of hand—in a word, an imitation of nature so skillful, and, at the same time, so simple, that one can not but recognize in them the productions of an art which had arrived at a point which required only a few steps more to reach perfection. To the latter part of this period belong the sculptors Canachus, Calamis, and Pythagoras. Canachus was the sculptor of a famous statue of a nude Apollo in bronze, termed Philesius, at Didymi, near Miletus, and was considered as very hard in his style.
Phidian.—"This period (we here adopt Mr. Vaux's words) is the golden age of Greek art. During this period arose a spirit of sculpture which combined grace and majesty in the happiest manner, and by emancipating the plastic art from the fetters of antique stiffness, attained, under the direction of Pericles, and by the hand of Phidias, its culminating point. It is curious to remark the gradual progress of the arts; for it is clear that it was slowly and notper saltumthat the gravity of the elder school was changed to the perfect style of the age of Phidias." In this phase of the art, the ideal had reached its zenith, and we behold a beauty and perfection which has never been equaled. In this age alone sculpture, by the grandeur and sublimity it had attained to in its style, was qualified to give a form to the sublime conceptions of the deity evolved by the mind of Phidias. He alone was considered able to embody and to render manifest to the eye the sublime images of Homer. Hence, he was called "the sculptor of the gods." It is well known that in the conception of his Jupiter Olympus, Phidias wished to render manifest, and that he succeeded in realizing, the sublime image under which Homer represents the master of the gods. The sculptor embodied that image in the following manner, according to Pausanias: "The god, made of ivory and gold, is seated on a throne, his head crowned with a branch of olive, his right hand presented a Victory of ivory and gold, with a crown and fillet; his lefthand held a sceptre, studded with all kinds of metals, on which an eagle sat; the sandals of the god were gold, so was his drapery, on which were various animals, with flowers of all kinds, especially lilies; his throne was richly wrought with gold and precious stones. There were also statues; four Victories, alighting, were at each foot of the throne; those in front rested each on a sphinx that had seized a Theban youth; below the sphinxes the children of Niobe were slain by the arrows of Apollo and Artemis." This statue, Flaxman observes, sixty feet in height, was the most renowned work of ancient sculpture, not for stupendous magnitude alone, but more for careful majesty and sublime beauty. His Minerva in the Parthenon was of gold and ivory. The goddess was represented standing robed in a tunic, and her head covered with the formidable ægis; with her right hand she held a lance; in the left she held a statue of Victory about five feet high; her helmet was surmounted by a sphinx and two griffins, and over the visor eight horses in front in full gallop. The shield erected at the feet of the goddess was adorned on both sides with bas-reliefs. At the base of the statue were a sphinx and a serpent. This colossus was thirty-seven feet high. The gem of Aspasus and the silver tetra-drachm of Athens are said to be copies of the head of this Minerva.
Another remarkable statue of Phidias was the Athene Promachus, in the Acropolis. It represented the tutelary goddess of the Athenians, fully armed and in the attitude of battle, with one arm raised and holding spear in her hand. This work was of colossal dimensions and stood in the open air, nearly opposite the Propylæa. It towered above the roof of the Parthenon and it is said the crest of the helmet and the point of the spear could be seen far off by ships approaching Athens from Sunium. Its height is supposed to have been, with its pedestal, about seventy feet, the material was bronze. Thereare two marble statues which have come down to us, and which give some idea of the Minervas of Phidias. One is the Pallas of Velletri, which is supposed to be a copy of the Minerva Promachus (cut is on p. 530). The Farnese Minerva, at Naples, may afford some idea of the chryselephantine statue of the Parthenon. It does not, however, present the accessories of the Athenian figure. The Sphinx, the serpent and the shield are not represented. The sculptures of the Parthenon, now in the British Museum, can lead us to appreciate the manner of Phidias, and the character of his school, so observed by Flaxman. The statues of the pediments, the metopes, and bas-reliefs, are remarkable for the grandeur of style, simplicity, truth, beauty, which are the characteristics of this school. On the eastern pediment was represented the birth of Minerva, and on the western the contest between Minerva and Neptune for the guardianship of the soil of Attica. Of the figures still preserved to us of the eastern pediment, it has been generally supposed that the reclining figure may be identified as Theseus, that another is Ceres, a third Iris, the messenger, about to announce to mortals the great event of the birth of Minerva, which has just taken place, while the group of three female figures are considered to represent the three Fates. Of the western pediment, the remaining figures are Cecrops, the first King and founder of Athens, and Aglaura, his wife, and the river god, Ilissus, or Cephisus. The metopes, which generally represent single contests between the Athenians and the Centaurs, are in strong high relief, full of bold action and passionate exertion—though this is for the most part softened by great beauty of form and a masterly style of composition which knows how to adapt itself with the utmost freedom to the strict conditions of the space. These reliefs were placed high, as they were calculated for the full light of the sun, and to throw deeper shadows.
The frieze may be considered as the chief glory of the artof Phidias. The artists here expressed with the utmost beauty the signification of the temple by depicting a festive procession, which was celebrated every fifth year at Athens, in honor of Minerva, conveying in solemn pomp to the temple of the Parthenon the peplos, or sacred veil, which was to be suspended before the statue of the goddess. The end of the procession has just reached the temple, the archons and heralds await, quietly conversing together, the end of the ceremony. They are followed by a train of Athenian maidens, singly or in groups, many of them with cans and other vessels in their hands. Then follow men and women, then bearers of sacrificial gifts, then flute-players and musicians, followed by combatants in chariots, with four splendid horses. The whole is concluded by prancing horsemen, the prime of the manly youth of Athens. This frieze was within the colonnade of the Parthenon, on the upper part of the wall of the cella, and was continued round the building. By its position it only obtained a secondary light. Being placed immediately below the soffit, it received all its light from between the columns, and by reflection from the pavement below. Mr. Westmacott remarks that these works are unquestionably the finest specimens of the art that exist, and they illustrate fully and admirably the progress and, as it may be said, the consummation of sculpture. They exhibit in a remarkable degree all the qualities that constitute fine art—truth, beauty, and perfect execution. In the forms, the most perfect, the most appropriate and the most graceful have been selected. All that is coarse or vulgar is omitted, and that only is represented which unites the two essential qualities of truth and beauty. The result of this happy combination is what has been termed ideal beauty. These sculptures, however, which emanated from the mind of Phidias, and were most certainly executed under his eyes, and in his school, are not the works of his hands. Phidias himself disdained or worked but little in marble. They were, doubtless,the works of his pupils, Alcamenes, Agoracritus, Colotes, Pæonios, and some other artists of his time. For, as Flaxman remarks, the styles of different hands are sufficiently evident in the alto and basso rilievo. To the age of Phidias belong the sculptors Alcamenes, Agoracritus, and Pæonios. The greatest work of Alcamenes was a statue of Venus in the Gardens, a work to which it is said Phidias himself put the finishing touch. He also executed a bronze statue of a conqueror in the games, which Pliny says was known as the "Encrinomenos, the highly approved." Agoracritus, who, Pliny says, was such a favorite of Phidias that he gave his own name to many of that artist's works, entered into a contest with Alcamenes, the subject being a statue of Venus. Alcamenes was successful, Pliny tells us, not that his work was superior, but because his fellow-citizens chose to give their suffrages in his favor, in preference to a stranger. It was for this reason that Agoracritus, indignant at his treatment, sold his statue on the express condition that it should never be taken to Athens, and changed its name to Nemesis. It was accordingly erected at Rhamnus.
A marble statue of Victory, a beautiful Nike in excellent preservation, has been lately discovered at Olympia, bearing the name of Pæonios. This statue is mentioned by Pausanius as a votive offering set up by the Messenians in the Altis, the sacred grove of Zeus at Olympia. The statues in the eastern pediment of the temple of Jupiter at Olympia were by Pæonios, and those in the western by Alcamenes. The first represented the equestrian contest of Pelops against Oenomaus, and in the second the Lapithæ were represented fighting with the centaurs at the marriage of Pirithous.
The frieze of the temple of Apollo at Bassæ, near Phigaleia, in Arcadia, belongs to this period. It was the work of Ictinus, the architect of the Parthenon. Contests with the Amazons and battles with the centaurs form the subject of the whole. Themost animated and boldest compositions are sculptured in these reliefs. They exhibit, however, exaggeration, and are wanting in that repose and beauty which are the characteristics of the works of Phidias.
In the half draped Venus of Milo now in the Louvre, we have a genuine Greek work, which represents an intermediate style between that of Phidias and Praxiteles. "Grandly serious," Professor Lubke writes, "and almost severe, stands the goddess of Love, not yet conceived as in later representations, as a love requiring woman. The simple drapery, resting on the hips, displays uncovered the grand forms of the upper part of the body, which, with all her beauty, have that mysteriously unapproachable feeling which is the genuine expression of the divine."
Praxitilean.This period is characterized by a more rich and flowing style of execution, as well as by the choice of softer and more delicate subjects than had usually been selected for representation. In this the beautiful was sought, after rather than the sublime. Praxiteles may be considered the first sculptor who introduced this more sensual, if it may be so called, style of art, for he was the first who, in the unrobed Venus, combined the utmost luxuriance of personal charms with a spiritual expression in which the queen of love herself appeared as a woman needful of love, and filled with inward longing. He first gave a prominence to corporeal attractions, with which the deity was invested. His favorite subjects were of youthful and feminine beauty. In his Venus of Cnidos he exhibited the goddess in the most exquisite form of woman. His Cupid represented the beauty and grace of that age in boys which seemed to the Greeks the most attractive. His Apollo Sauroctonos presented the form of a youth of exquisite beauty and proportion. The Venus of Cnidos stands foremost as one of the celebrated art creations of antiquity. This artist represented the goddess completely undraped; but this bold innovation was justified by thefact that she was taking up her garment with her left hand, as if she were just coming from her bath, while with her right she modestly covered her figure. Many as are the subsequent copies preserved of this famous statue, we can only conceive the outward idea of the attitude, but none of the pure grandeur of the work of Praxiteles. In the Vatican (Chiaramonte gallery, No. 112) there is one of very inferior execution, but perhaps the only one which gives a correct idea of this Venus, as it corresponds as nearly as possible with the pose of the statue on the coin of Cnidos and with the description of Lucan.
His Cupid is represented as a slender, undeveloped boy, full of liveliness and activity, earnestly endeavoring to fasten the strings to his bow. A Roman copy of this statue is in the British Museum.
He also executed in bronze a Faun, which was known as "Periboetos, the much famed;" the finest of the many copies of this celebrated statue that have come down to us, is in the Capitol; and a youthful Apollo, styled Sauroctonos, because he is aiming an arrow at a lizard which is stealing towards him; a copy of this statue in marble is in the Vatican, and one in bronze in the Villa Albani.
Contemporary with Praxiteles was Scopas. His works exhibit powerful expression, grandeur, combined with beauty and grace. The group of Niobe and her children, at Florence, has been attributed to him. Another very celebrated work of Scopas was the statue of the Pythian Apollo playing on the lyre, which Augustus placed in the temple which he built to Apollo, on the Palatine, in thanksgiving for his victory at Actium. An inferior Roman copy of this statue is in the Vatican. He was also celebrated for his heads of Apollo. Of these many excellent copies are still extant, the finest being that formerly in the Giustiniani collection, and now in the British Museum.
The late discoveries at Halicarnassus have yielded genuineworks of Scopas in the sculptures of the bas-reliefs of Mausoleum, erected by Artemisia in memory of her husband, Mausolus, King of Caria, the east side of which is known to have proceeded from his hands; the other sides by his contemporaries, Bryaxis, Timotheus and Leochares. Parts of these are now in the British Museum.
The bas-reliefs of the temple of Nike Apteros have been associated with the peculiarities which characterize the productions of Scopas. A figure of Victory, stooping to loose her sandal, in bas-relief from this temple, is remarkable for its admirably arranged drapery.
The sculptural decorations of the temple of Artemis, at Ephesus, the foundations of which have been lately discovered by Mr. Wood, there is every reason to believe were contributed by Praxiteles and Scopas. The drum of a column, with figures in bas-relief from this temple, has been lately added to the British Museum.
The beautiful figure of a Bacchante in bas-relief in the British Museum is generally referred to Scopas.
The following are some of the more particular characteristics of the human form, adopted by the Grecian sculptors of this age:
In the profile, the forehead and lips touch a perpendicular line drawn between them. In young persons, the brow and nose nearly form a straight line, which gives an expression of grandeur and delicacy to the face. The forehead was low, the eyes large, but not prominent. A depth was given to the eye to give to the eyebrow a finer arch, and, by a deeper shadow, a bolder relief. To the eyes a living play of light was communicated by a sharp projection of the upper eyelid, and a deep depression of the pupil. The eye was so differently shaped in the heads of divinities and ideal heads that it is itself a characteristic by which they can be distinguished. In Jupiter, Apollo, and Junothe opening of the eye is large, and roundly arched; it has also less length than usual, that the curve which it makes may be more spherical. Pallas likewise has large eyes, but the upper lid falls over them more than in the three divinities just mentioned, for the purpose of giving her a modest maiden look. Small eyes were reserved for Venuses and voluptuous beauties, which gave them a languishing air. The upper lip was short, the lower lip fuller than the upper, as this tended to give a roundness to the chin; the short upper lip, and the round and grandly-formed chin, being the most essential signs of genuine Greek formation. The lips were generally closed; they slightly open in the statues of the gods, especially in the case of Venus, but the teeth were never seen. The ear was carefully modeled and finished. The beauty, and especially the execution of them, is, according to Winkelman, the surest sign by which to discriminate the antique from additions and restorations. The hair was curly, abundant, and disposed in floating locks, and executed with the utmost imaginable care; in females it was tied in a knot behind the head. The frontal hair was represented as growing in a curve over the temples in order to give the face an oval shape. The face was always oval, and a cross drawn in the oval indicated the design of the face. The perpendicular line marked the position of the brow, the nose, the mouth, and the chin; the horizontal line passed through the eyes, and was parallel to the mouth. The hands of youth were beautifully rounded, and the dimples given; the fingers were tapered, but the articulations were not generally indicated. In the male form the chest was high, arched, and prominent. In the female form, especially in that of goddesses and virgins, the form of the breasts is virginal in the extreme, since their beauty was generally made to consist in the moderateness of their size. They were generally a little higher than nature. The abdomen was without prominence. The legs and knees ofyouthful figures are rounded with softness and smoothness, and unmarked by muscular movements. The proportion of the limbs was longer than in the preceding period. In male and female figures the foot was rounded in its form; in the female the toes are delicate, and have dimples over their first joints gently marked.
It is evident that this type of beauty of form, adopted by the Grecian sculptors, is in unison with, and exhibits a marked analogy to the type of face and form of the Greeks themselves, for, as Sir Charles Bell observes, the Greek face is a fine oval, the forehead full and carried forward, the eyes large, the nose straight, the lips and chin finely formed; in short, the forms of the head and face have been the type of the antique, and of all which we most admire.
The sculptors of this age, instead of aiming at an abstract, unattainable ideal, studied nature in its choicest forms, and attained the beautiful by selecting and concentrating in one those charms which are found diffused over all. They avoided the representation of all violent motions and perturbations of the passions, which would have completely marred that expression of serene repose which is a prominent characteristic of the beautiful period of Greek sculpture. Indeed, the chief object of the Greek sculptor was the representation of the beautiful alone, and to this principle he made character, expression, costume, and everything else subordinate.
Lysippus, the successor of Praxiteles and Scopas, was a contemporary of Alexander the Great. He contributed to advance their style by the peculiar fullness, roundness, and harmonious general effect by which it appears that his works were characterized. His school exhibited a strong naturalistic tendency, a closer imitation of nature, leading to many refinements in detail. It was unquestionably greater in portrait than in ideal works. Pliny thus speaks of his style: "He is considered to havecontributed very greatly to the art of the statuary by expressing the details of the hair, and by making the head smaller than had been done by the ancients, and the body more graceful and less bulky, a method by which his statues were made to appear taller."
The portrait statues of Alexander the Great by Lysippus were very numerous. The great King would only allow himself to be modeled by Lysippus. The head of Alexander, as the young Ammon on the coins of Lysimachus, is said to have been designed by him. An athlete, scraping his body with a strigil, was the most famous of the bronze statues of Lysippus. The statue of an athlete in the Vatican, in a similar position, is supposed to be a marble copy of the original bronze of Lysippus; though an inferior work, it illustrates the statements of Pliny regarding the proportions adopted by Lysippus—a small head and the body long and slim. The bas-reliefs also on the monument of Lysicrates, representing the story of Dionysus and the Tyrrhenian pirates, presented all the characteristic features of the school of Lysippus. It was erected in the archonship of Euænetus, B.C. 335.
The canon of Polycletus began to be generally adopted at this period. It was followed by Lysippus, who called the Doryphoros of that artist his master. In his practice of dealing with the heads and limbs of his figures, Lysippus was followed by Silanion and Euphranor, and his authority may be said to have governed the school of Greece to a late period of the art.
Pliny tells us that Euphranor was the first who represented heroes with becoming dignity, and who paid particular attention to proportion. He made, however, in the generality of instances, the bodies somewhat more slender and the heads larger. His most celebrated statue was a Paris, which expressed alike the judge of the goddesses, the lover of Helen, and the slayer of Achilles. The very beautiful sitting figure of Paris, in marble, in the Vatican, is, no doubt, a copy of this work.
Subsequently to these sculptors we have Chares, the Rhodian, who constructed the famous colossus of Helios at the entrance of the harbor of Rhodes, which was 105 feet high. It appears there is no authority for the common statement that its legs extended over the mouth of the harbor.
Of the later Asiatic or Rhodian schools we have the famous groups of the Laocoon, on page 555, and of Dirce tied to a bull, commonly called the Toro Farnese. In both of these the dramatic element is predominant, and the tragic interest is not appreciated. In the Laocoon consummate skill is shown in the mastery of execution; but if the object of the artist was to create pity or awe, he has drawn too much attention to his power of carving marble. The Laocoon was executed, according to Pliny, by Agesander, Polydorus and Athenodorus, natives of Rhodes. This group, now in the Vatican, was found in the baths of Titus. From the evidence of an antique gem, on which is engraved a representation of this group, we find the right arm of the Laocoon has been wrongly restored. In the gem the hand of Laocoon is in contact with his head, and not, as restored by Giovanni da Montorsoli, raised high.
The Farnese Bull, a work in which we possess the most colossal group of antiquity, was executed by Apollonius and Tauriscus, of Tralles. To the same school belongs the Dying Gladiator, who unquestionably represents, as usually supposed, a combatant who died in the amphitheatre. It is remarkable for the entire absence of ideal representation, and for its complete individuality and close imitation of nature. This statue is probably one of the masterpieces of the celebrated Pyromachus, who executed several groups, and large compositions of battle scenes for Attalus, King of Pergamus, to celebrate his decisive victory over the Gauls (B.C. 240).
To the later Athenian school belong probably the Belvidere Torso, so much admired by Michael Angelo, the FarneseHercules, the Venus de'Medici, and the Fighting Gladiator. The Belvidere Torso is now considered to be a copy by Apollonius, the son of Nestor, of the Hercules of Lysippus, and probably executed in the Macedonian period. The Farnese Hercules is so exaggerated in its style as to have been deemed a work as late as the Roman empire. According to Flaxman, the Venus de'Medici is a deteriorated variety or repetition of a Venus of Praxiteles. It is now generally admitted that it is a work of the latest Macedonian period, probably by Cleomenes, whose name appears on its base. The Fighting Gladiator bears the name of Agasias of Ephesus. From the attitude of the figure it is clear that the statue represents not a gladiator, but a warrior contending with a mounted combatant, probably an Athenian, warding off a blow from a centaur.