by recent archaeological research is afforded by an article on ancient
history in the new edition of the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_. The
article is written by Professor J. B. Bury, Regius Professor of Modern
History in Cambridge University, and is contributed to _The Sphere_,
the well-known London illustrated weekly.
During the past thirty years our knowledge of the beginnings of
Greek history has undergone a transformation, which is associated
with the now familiar names of Mycenae and Cnossus. Nearly all that
was written on early Greece by Grote and the other brave men before
Agamemnon--who is Schliemann--may now be safely left unread. The
striking discoveries of Schliemann, however, at Mycenae, Tiryns, and
Troy, did not revolutionize our view of pre-Homeric Greece, though
they suggested a new perspective. It is the startling facts revealed
by the Cretan exploration of Mr. Arthur Evans that have opened the
door into a new world full of surprises--an unsuspected civilization
reaching back through a period measured not by centuries but by
millennia. The prolegomena to Greek history now consist of an entirely
new set of facts and a new set of problems. At the same time we have
been learning a great deal more about the old civilizations in the
near East contemporary with this Aegean civilization which has sprung
upon our vision like a magic castle built in a night. Our knowledge of
Egypt, Babylonia, and Assyria has become not only more extensive but
clearer and more precise; and the importance of the Hittites in Asia
Minor and Syria, though their own documents are still a sealed book,
is emerging from obscurity.
One of the first thoughts that occur in connexion with the above is
that we must still be careful about the statements of historians,
whenever they tend to minimize or restrict; for, as they have altered
their views before, so they may alter them again. We are bidden to
throw our Grote into the waste-basket; but many will say that the
claims made on behalf of that now despised scholarship were not lacking
in positiveness. The views founded on this older scholarship have been
made the basis for attacks on the views put forward and advocated by
Theosophists; but now we find the opinions of scholarship revised,
and altered more into conformity with some of the Theosophical views.
Naturally, therefore, Theosophists infer that another thirty years will
have witnessed yet further concessions on the part of scholarship;
and they look forward to seeing all the statements of H. P. Blavatsky
verified one by one as time goes on. They likewise conceded the
apparent necessity, due to certain traits of human nature which we all
have, of assuming a positive and dogmatic attitude with each new step
in discovery, regardless of the logic of the case which would bid one
apply to the future the lesson of the past, and put forward with due
modesty views that are liable to change.
Said H. P. Blavatsky, in the Introduction to _The Secret Doctrine_,
published in 1888:
No one styling himself a "scholar," in whatever department of exact
science, will be permitted to regard these teachings seriously. They
will be derided and rejected _a priori_ in this century; but only in
this one. For in the twentieth century of our era scholars will begin
to recognize that the _Secret Doctrine_ has neither been invented nor
exaggerated, but, on the contrary, simply outlined; and finally, that
its teachings antedate the Vedas.
Other writers before H. P. Blavatsky, and from whom she quotes, had
shown that the accessible facts of history, tradition, and archaeology,
if interpreted in the light of a logic unbiased by preconceived
opinion, demonstrate the extreme antiquity of civilization. But such
writers have been regarded by the body of orthodox scholarship as
cranks and paradoxists. In _The Secret Doctrine_, H. P. Blavatsky
gathers together the evidence referred to by these writers, adds much
more collected by herself, and throws upon the whole the light of
Theosophy. By means of the clues thus afforded, a consistent pattern is
seen to pervade the apparently tangled skein, and the harmony between
the Theosophical truths and the facts thus adduced strikes home to
the unprejudiced mind with the force of conviction. To clinch the
matter, living Theosophists can now point in triumph, as above said,
to the admissions made by scholars since _The Secret Doctrine_ was
written--admissions which agree better with what H. P. Blavatsky said a
quarter of a century ago than with their own utterances at that time.
It is seldom, indeed, whatever be the reason, that Theosophists have
the pleasure of seeing H. P. Blavatsky's name and work mentioned in
this connexion; though, as her works are still being issued and are
readily available, it might seem strange that no mention should be
made of them in connexion with matters so intimately related to the
subjects of which they treat. The question as to whether scholars have
read these works or not is debatable; but in either case Theosophists
may find a source of gratification. For if scholars have read them,
that at least is a tribute of respect, even though the indebtedness
be unacknowledged. While if they have not read them, the inference is
that the teachings of Theosophy have been confirmed from an independent
source.
In assuming the duties of a pioneer, H. P. Blavatsky was doubtless
aware of the drawbacks incidental to such a rôle in the present age;
but she seems to have been so wrapped up in the enthusiasm of her
purpose as to have been somewhat reckless of the consequences to
herself. This however is quite consistent with the known character
of pioneers. But, though too much interested in their work to seek
renown or even recognition, they doubtless achieve this unsought
boon eventually; for the law of rebirth may bring them back to earth
in time to see their own monuments and to realize that now their
all-too-inconvenient personality has been removed by Time to a
distance, their harmless name may be safely honored. H. P. Blavatsky
was much derided; then ignored; her generosity was not appreciated;
she was accused of the most impossible motives. But now many of her
teachings are found to be true--not in archaeology alone, but in
comparative religion, science, and several other fields. Shall we then
expect amends? Ask the shades of Mesmer and Elliotson, the persecuted
advocates of a since rediscovered treatment; of Dr. B. W. Richardson,
who suffered for his ideas on "nervous ether," now being rehabilitated,
but without amends to the author; or the shades of many another
pioneer. We dare not expect too much of humanity in this age; few will
be those whose generosity will allow them to make such amends; and even
of these, fewer still will be those who will break the rule of silence
that seems to bind the tongues of the well-disposed.
There are always some, however, who are more interested in knowing
the truth than in vindicating any personal or orthodox point of view;
people whose vision, thus unblinded, sees further and clearer; and to
these it may occur that the teachings of _The Secret Doctrine_, thus
far vindicated, may be worthy of attention in view of the natural
inference that the rest of them will likewise be vindicated. The
Theosophical teachings, reintroduced to Western civilization by H. P.
Blavatsky, have been neglected by some and grotesquely travestied by
others; but they contain the science and scholarship of the future--if
that future but remain loyal to truth. Loyalty to truth can only
result in its establishment--in the vindication of Theosophy. And the
particular truths to be established in the present case--the antiquity
of civilization, the greatness of past humanity--are important in
no mere academic sense. Medieval theology, much of whose spirit was
inherited by scientific theorists, has belittled man and weakened his
confidence in himself. The recognition of man's past achievements gives
renewed hope for his future possibilities. Closely interwoven with the
Theosophical teachings about the antiquity of civilization are the
teachings about the Divine nature of Man. The Theosophical teachings
are a consistent whole. Hence these wider views in archaeology,
science, and religion, must tend to the widening of views concerning
the nature of man and the destruction of old superstitions about his
being born in sin or descended from the beasts.
While archaeology will naturally endeavor to go as slow as it can and
to keep its discoveries well in hand, so to say, digesting them and
incorporating them with the body of orthodox academic opinion, it is
nevertheless true that it will be obliged to give way and expand its
borders. For one thing, there are many explorers investigating in
different fields; and these, in their theories, do not exhibit such
uniformity and conformity as might be desired. One archaeologist will
make admissions which others are not willing to make, because these
particular admissions do not damage his own particular theory. Thus,
taking all together, many admissions are made; the errors tend to
cancel one another; the truth tends to add itself up. Another factor is
what may be called "newspaper archaeology." The Sunday editions and the
popular illustrated magazines familiarize the public with the latest
discoveries and most advanced theories; and they frequently go a little
too fast for the authorities. But what these popular accounts lack in
accuracy they make up in freedom from prejudice.
[Illustration: Lomaland Photo. and Engraving Dept. MONUMENT OF DE
LESSEPS, PORT SAID]
[Illustration: Lomaland Photo. and Engraving Dept. HIGH RELIEF FROM THE
ALBERT MEMORIAL, LONDON A GROUP OF ARCHITECTS]
[Illustration: Lomaland Photo. and Engraving Dept. PANEL FROM THE
ALBERT MEMORIAL]
[Illustration: Lomaland Photo. and Engraving Dept. ANOTHER PANEL FROM
THE ALBERT MEMORIAL]
[Illustration: Lomaland Photo. and Engraving Dept. PORTION OF
DECORATIVE FRIEZE FROM THE ALBERT MEMORIAL]
[Illustration: Lomaland Photo. and Engraving Dept. CONTINUATION OF
DECORATIVE FRIEZE FROM THE ALBERT MEMORIAL]
GREAT NAMES IN ART. SCULPTURES FROM THE ALBERT MEMORIAL: by an Art
Student
The first illustration represents a group of architects of modern, or
comparatively modern times; the majority are British. This, and the
four other groups which follow, are from the high-relief or frieze on
the pedestal of the Albert Memorial in Hyde Park, London, and were
executed by J. B. Philip, about forty years ago.
Although the immense sum of $600,000 was lavished upon the monument to
Prince Albert, the estimable consort of Queen Victoria, the memorial
has never been regarded as a satisfactory work of art. The general
design has some original and interesting features, but the structure is
overloaded with gilding and mosaic, and the execution is mechanically
rather than aesthetically distinguished. The statue of the Prince
himself is inadequate, and the large groups of figures representing the
Four Quarters of the World, Industry, etc., though they may have passed
muster in the mid-Victorian period of the '60s and '70s, are not up to
the artistic standard of today. London has been singularly unfortunate
in the quality of its public monuments, and it is to be feared that the
new Memorial to Queen Victoria which has just been unveiled, will not
raise the average.
There are one hundred and nine figures on the pedestal, a large portion
of which are shown in our illustrations. They include painters, poets,
architects, sculptors, and some heroes and reformers. They are of far
greater interest from the historical associations they arouse than from
their artistic quality.
The seated figure in the center of the first illustration is the famous
Sir Christopher Wren, (1632-1723) the builder of St. Paul's Cathedral,
London, and pre-eminently the most distinguished British architect
who has flourished since the Gothic period. He was one of the most
original geniuses of the Renascence. Wren had an extraordinary field
for his talents opened to him by the immense destruction caused by the
Great Fire of London in 1666, and he was certainly the right man in the
right place. Not only did he rebuild St. Paul's Cathedral but fifty
other London churches. Up to date, St. Paul's is the largest and finest
Protestant Cathedral in the world. Though open to criticism in some of
its minor details and constructive arrangements, it is allowed to stand
foremost among buildings of its class in Europe, St. Peter's possibly
excepted.
Standing beside Wren is Inigo Jones, one of the first and most highly
accomplished English architects of the Renascence. His fame chiefly
rests upon his design for the palace of Whitehall, commanded by
James I. The Banqueting Hall was the only part actually carried into
execution. A window of this splendid building is still pointed out as
the fatal one from which Charles I stepped to the block.
Vanbrugh, standing behind Wren, was the latter's famous pupil. He built
Blenheim, the seat of the great Duke of Marlborough. To the right of
Inigo Jones is Mansart or Mansard, the French architect whose memory
is immortalized in the "Mansard roof," which he invented. Palladio
and Vignola, to the extreme right, were Italian Renascence architects
whose influence upon the classic revival was very great in England
and France; the Palladian style being particularly followed in the
former and that of Vignola in the latter country. A striking group of
buildings was erected by Palladio in Vicenza, Italy, in the sixteenth
century, which became the model on which a large proportion of the
Renascence work in England was based.
Of the modern English architects on the left, Sir Charles Barry is the
most notable. He was among the first to depart from the fashion so long
prevalent of introducing Greek and Roman forms into every building
of importance, and was one of the pioneers of the Gothic revival of
the nineteenth century, a century without a distinctive style of its
own. He designed the British Houses of Parliament, which, in spite of
some weaknesses, is a striking building with an eminently picturesque
sky-line.
The kneeling figure at the right of the second illustration is the
great art reformer Giotto, (1276-1336) the admirable Florentine who
liberated the art of painting from the stiff Byzantine traditions which
had been dominant for many centuries. He exercised a lasting influence
upon the arts in every part of Italy, and thereby, upon the whole
western world. Carved in low relief as a background are the Dome and
Campanile of Florence Cathedral, the latter being a masterpiece proving
that Giotto had supreme ability as a builder in addition to his skill
with the brush.
Seated beside Giotto is Arnolfo di Lapo, a successor of the celebrated
Niccolo Pisano, one of the few great sculptors of the Gothic period.
On Giotto's left is Brunelleschi (1377-1446), sculptor and architect.
To him we owe the completion of the great Dome of Florence Cathedral,
which is unequaled for beauty though not so high as several later
ones. He is also noted for his treatment of the "rusticated" work on
the Pitti Palace, Florence.
William of Wykeham, a great man in many walks of life, is famous
in architecture for the nave of Winchester Cathedral (of which he
was bishop), one of the finest examples of the Perpendicular style
existing. Bramante, the next figure, (1441-1514) was the first
architect of the present St. Peter's at Rome, a position afterwards
held by Peruzzi, Raphael, and Michelangelo. Bramante built many palaces
in Rome; his style was simple and dignified, and he adhered as far as
possible to the classical forms.
Sansovino (1479-1570) is best known for his picturesque Library of
St. Mark, Venice. San Gallo was another of the splendid galaxy of
Florentine architects of the Renascence. Vignola, at the extreme left,
was one of Michelangelo's successors in the building of St. Peter's;
but unfortunately he altered the design in such a way that the great
dome of Michelangelo cannot be seen from the front except at a great
distance. On Vignola's right stands Delorme, the favorite architect
of the French king Henri II; he is remembered chiefly as the first
designer of the Palace of the Tuileries.
The third picture contains, among others, the portraits of some famous
English, German and French architects of the later Middle Ages. Erwin
von Steinbach (died 1318) is famous for his magnificent west front of
Strasburg Cathedral, of which, unfortunately, one of the magnificent
openwork steeples was never finished. The Abbé Suger was the patriotic
adviser of the French kings Louis VI and VII, and was justly celebrated
for his efforts for the welfare of the poorer classes at a time when
their interests were generally disregarded (twelfth century).
Anthemius, to the right of the Abbé, was the great Grecian architect
and mathematician who designed for Justinian (A. D. 532) the daring and
original plans of St. Sophia at Constantinople. He is credited with
knowing the ancient secret of making "burning-glasses" (magnifying
glasses) which was not rediscovered for hundreds of years. He is also
said to have understood the making of gunpowder, and the application of
steam as a motive power.
The seated figure to the left in the fourth illustration is the great
painter, sculptor and architect, Michelangelo. At his right are
Torrigiano, his early rival, who is famous for the fine carvings on the
tomb of Henry VII in Westminster Abbey; Gian di Bologna (1524-1608), a
follower of Michelangelo, and Bandinelli, another rival whom he soon
outdistanced. Next to Peter Vischer, (died 1524), one of the early
bronze workers in Nürnberg, renowned for his tomb of St. Sebald in
that city, is the erratic, bloodthirsty, gallant, and most eminent of
all metal-workers, Benvenuto Cellini. His Diana of Fontainebleau, and
Perseus of Florence, are his finest large works, but he principally
devoted himself to smaller articles such as chased vases, etc. His
autobiography is one of the most delightfully naïve "human documents"
existing. In the background is a model of the Perseus.
The next seated figure is Jean Goujon, (1530-1572) one of the restorers
of French sculpture as an independent art; he is well known for his
decoration of the Louvre. Beside him is the martyr-artist Bernard
Palissy (1499?-1589), who after sixteen years of incessant and
unremunerated labor discovered a pure white enamel ground for pottery
which was suitable for the application of decorative art. He was
reduced to the extremity of poverty before he made his great discovery,
even having to burn his furniture to feed his furnaces. But as soon as
his animal sculpture in pottery became famous and prosperity began to
shine upon him, he became the victim of religious persecution. Charged
with being a Calvinistic preacher, it was only by the aid of powerful
friends who admired his genius that he escaped for some years, and
finally he was thrown into the Bastile, where he perished.
In our last illustration Michelangelo is at the extreme right. At
his left stands Donatello (1386-1468) the forerunner of the greatest
of the Florentines, and probably the next best known name in Italian
sculpture. His most famous works are in low relief, but several of his
full-sized statues, such as the St. George in Florence, are very fine.
Luca della Robbia, (seated,) and Ghiberti were almost contemporary
with Donatello, and, next to Michelangelo, these three are perhaps the
greatest glory of Florence in sculpture. Luca della Robbia invented the
process of enameling terra cotta; his groups of Singers at Florence are
his most famous work. Ghiberti is chiefly known by his wonderful bronze
gates to the Baptistery at Florence. Looking over Donatello's shoulder
is Andrea Verrocchio (1432-1488), painter and sculptor, a follower of
Donatello, and the teacher of the universal genius Leonardo da Vinci.
Niccolo Pisano, the third figure from the left is of earlier date than
those hitherto mentioned. He was architect, sculptor and painter;
under the inspiration of his genius sculpture was revived in Italy,
and every branch of art was influenced. Imitation of nature in place
of conventionalism was introduced. He is one of the few really great
sculptors of the Gothic period; he may be considered really to be the
forerunner of the Renascence. His most famous work, the marble pulpit
in the baptistery at Pisa, was finished in 1260.
THE TWO FAIRYLANDS--A Study in the Literature of Wonder: by Kenneth
Morris
I
One has been reading a fairy-tale of our own day, which has made a
great stir in literary and dramatic circles, and it has given rise to
certain ideas as to canons of criticism. Its name, and its author's, do
not matter; there will be more freedom if they remain unmentioned.
What a charm is here! Millions of colors that never were in the rainbow
nor the sea-shell; a subtle, exquisite loveliness--which yet, in the
after-taste--somehow repels. Always mystery; what we call inanimate
things waking to life (as they should do, indeed, in any right-minded
fairy-tale); a sense of mutable, inconsequent horizons, over which no
sun has ever risen or set. And, as there should be in fairy-tales,
a kind of esotericism glimmering through; a meaning concealed yet
obvious. Yet there is fairy gold and fairy gold. The best kind has the
aspect of a petal or a pebble; but with the dawn, lo, some diamond or
magical tiara. We are a little doubtful that this moon-wan opalescence
will not turn out to be only a good worthy piece of Birmingham-ware.
Withal, there are fine notes at the end, that touch deep centers in us;
for these one can but be duly and truly thankful.
There are certainly two methods of imagination; and we find them shown
forth excellently in fairy literature. By that we mean all mythology;
every tale wherein non-human or magical agents play their part. It
will include a good part of our poetry; Shakespeare, Keats, Shelley,
Coleridge, Poe, and Tennyson all dipped into it at times, or moved
habitually among its haunted valleys.
There are two roads running out from our actual world, and they run
through two separate Fairy-Lands. You shall go out by your front
door when the sun is shining, and come upon the one of them. It
leads through a wood of daffodils--Wordsworth's and Shakespeare's
daffodils--in whose company you will find yourself strangely exultant:
these are they that "take the winds with beauty"; hence their jocundity
and infectious mirth. Alive? Why, certainly; and wise also--only
perhaps you shall not yet be allowed to pry too curiously into their
counsels. All the flowers are alive in this fairyland; and they all
have their own secrets, which are sunbright and beneficent. Sunbright,
or sundark like the hyacinth--but still beneficent: poppy and
mandragora are not allowed to grow here.
As you ride on, you shall still feel the shining of the sun and the
vigor of the wind; or perhaps there will be sweet intimate grayness of
clouds, or perhaps the sweetness of rain. Rain or wind, you will feel
the touch of either on your face, and smell the earth-scent. There is
one valley there, where the sky is always clouded and windy; the sedge
is withered on the lake there, and no birds sing. But for that, you
might mistake it at first for a place in the other fairyland, because
of the haggard and woe-begone knight-at-arms you are to meet with,
"alone and palely loitering." Keats came to this valley, and heard his
whole story from him: it was this knight-at-arms who met _La Belle Dame
Sans Merci_.
Like everything else in this fairy-land, it is true; in this case the
beauty of its truth is awful. For you are not to suppose there are no
tragedies enacted here: there are as many as there are in the world.
There are a thousand wanderers in the valleys and on the mountains, who
would lure you away from the sunlight and the rain. Here, often and
often, it is written: "_Look not behind, or thou art lost_." Yet no
ruin can come upon you that is not definitely evitable: one holds one's
fate in one's own hands, and need fear nothing but himself.