“As regards archaic sculpture in Greece, we may be considered to have
decisive proof from Pausanias and others, that the ancient sacred
figures, that were rather venerated as idols than admired for art,
were often entirely coloured—flesh and drapery with vermilion,
perhaps conventionally and rudely enough, as we find on the archaic
vases, the flesh of women painted white, and that of men black.
The marble statues of Ægina, and others, that are works of truly
fine art, offer a second form of the application of colour. Here
the eyes, lips, draperies, ornaments, and details of arms, have
their true local colour, but the monuments themselves only give
us the negative evidence with respect to the flesh, that if
coloured at all, it must have been less solidly. Unless it were
tinged or stained, it is difficult to understand how the effect
of the coloured part could have been otherwise than very
disagreeable—spotty, patchy, crude, ghastly to the last degree;
but the experiment might be tried.
On the other hand, it is most certain that in the chryselephantine
statues, the Minerva of the Parthenon, the Jupiter Olympian, the
Juno of Argos, by Phidias, and by Polycletus, the greatest variety
of colour was applied throughout—or rather variety of colour was
given by the different materials of which these figures were
composed, ivory, gold, various coloured woods, stones and gems. But
painting or staining in the proper sense of the words, was certainly
applied to some portions; as, for instance, Pausanias states that
the robe of Jupiter had lilies painted on it.
The application of colour to the details of the architecture at least,
and to portions of the architectonic sculpture, would be absolutely
required, to harmonise them with the chief object in the temple
itself.
Lastly, as to the flesh of marble statues of the best age, no rule can
be deduced for this from any practice that obtained in primitive
times, or from chryselephantine works, which seem to have been in
designed contrast in the whole of their treatment.
The argument for colour on marble flesh of the best age, from existing
remains, so far as I am aware, is equal to zero. But the passage
respecting Nicias and Polycletus, is of very great force. There is
no escape from its application to marble statues, nor from the great
skill that there was occasion and scope for in the _circumlitio_.
Whatever this tinging or colouring may have been, we may be sure
that it was so employed as to heighten the purest effects. The edge
and sharpness, and smoothness and brilliancy, of the material,
cannot have been destroyed by it; rather sobered it may be, but
still enhanced. Doubtless it aided the peculiar glories of
sculpture, the display of forms, by rendering them more
visible—idealised rather than imitated nature, and treated every
part under the law of regard to the supreme intention and sentiment
of the whole. The same remarks (such as they are) apply to
bas-reliefs, which, however, have difficulties of their own.
Vitruvius (vii. 9), after describing the preparation of _minium_ or
vermilion, goes on to speak of its liability to change colour from
the action of direct sunlight, and gives instructions for protecting
it; he does not mention the medium employed with the colour, but as
it is insoluble, we must assume the use of size, as in other
instances, or gum, &c. The wall he is thinking of is apparently
stucco.
‘When the wall is painted with vermilion and dry, lay on with a brush
(of bristles, a hard or rough brush), Punic wax melted over the
fire, and a little tempered with oil; then by means of hot coals in
an iron vessel, warm the wall well and make the wax run, and
equalize itself; afterwards rub it with a wax candle and clean
cloths, as nude marble figures are treated.’
Pliny (xxi. 14) gives the preparation of Punic wax by a process of
which the chemical result, according to Dr. Turner, was a soap of
twenty parts wax to one of soda. He also (xxxiii. 7) describes the
same process as Vitruvius above, apparently copying him or a common
authority. The wax, he says, is applied hot, heated with coals
(admotis _gallæ_ carbonibus, whatever they may be), and then rubbed
with wax candles, and afterwards with clean linen cloths, as marbles
also become bright (or shiny), (sicut et marmora nitescunt).
Now how much of the treatment thus expressed applies to sculpture?
Putting the case most strongly, it might be said,—the whole, and
that nothing less than the whole, will accord with the _circumlitio_
of statues mentioned elsewhere, and by applying the whole we might
connect these notices with those of Plutarch and Pausanias of the
employment of vermilion in colouring statues, though these latter go
for very little as applicable to the best works of the best time.
The construction of the words of both authors imply in strictness
that the wax and linen rubbings of statues were applied to the wax
previously laid on and heated.
The treatment of statues is referred by Vitruvius specially to the
nude; it seems, therefore, to have had connection with a design to
assist or heighten the effect of the sculptured nude flesh, as
distinguished from drapery, &c. This would be natural enough, though
no colours were employed, or not for every part, but if they were we
must suppose that Vitruvius has vermilion in his mind leading him to
limit his observation. Pliny’s expression shows that even assuming
colour there is no opaqueness in question.
If a verdict were to be given on this evidence as it stands, I am much
disposed to think that it must be in favour of a tinge of vermilion,
protected by a brilliant varnish, having been applied to the nude
portions of (? some) marble statues in such a manner that both
colour and varnish assisted the fine surface and brilliant effect of
the lucent marble. So much for this part of the evidence and its
bearing on a final decision.”—W. W. LLOYD.