handiwork of acquired forms which existed for centuries in the lands of
the Nile and Tigris,--was not possible in the early art of progressive
Greece. Upon the foundation of the artistic ability already attained at
this period, various local schools and individual sculptors rose to a
higher level, and effected an advance, partly by opening new channels
for the artistic industry of all Hellas, partly by pursuing paths which
remained peculiar to themselves. Athens and Ægina are especially
prominent in this activity; but, notwithstanding many scholarly
researches, the history of art is not able to distinguish with certainty
between the works of the two cities, an Attic example analogous to the
chief work of the island being wanting for instructive comparison. The
chief difference between the two may have been that the former school
had a less strict and trained execution than the latter, with more grace
of form and nobility of bearing. Callon and Onatas were prominent
artists of Ægina, the latter seeming to have been the more celebrated.
On account of the hardness of their work, both were considered inferior
to Calamis. Onatas is particularly interesting from our knowledge of two
of his chief sculptures--extensive dedicatory offerings to Olympia and
Delphi, one of which represented the Greeks before Troy, casting lots to
determine upon an opponent for Hector, and the other the combat over the
fallen King of the Tapygians, Opis. The subjects of these works,
especially the latter, and the peculiarity emphasized by Pausanias that
the heroes before Troy were represented armed only with helmet, spear,
and shield, probably to give scope for the display of the artist’s skill
in the treatment of the nude, remind us of the two well-preserved groups
from the gables of the Temple of Athene at Ægina, which, in point of
style, must have been closely allied to those of Onatas. These priceless
marbles were discovered in 1811, and the next year, by a chain of
fortunate circumstances, came into the possession of Louis I., then
Crown-prince of Bavaria. Ten of the remaining statues belong to the
western gable, and five to the eastern; the greater part of the former
group is thus preserved, and, as the scenes in both gables are almost
entirely alike, their general arrangement may be restored with
reasonable certainty. That over the chief front represents the struggle
for a fallen hero, probably Oicles in the contest of Heracles and the
Æginetan Telamon with Laomedon of Troy. In the rear tympanon the scene
is the recovery of the body of Achilles or of Patroclos. Subjects so
closely allied could lead to no great difference of composition, at most
to such slight variations as the characterization of Heracles in the
first group or of Paris in the second, if this latter be considered an
episode in which that hero took part. In both gables the fallen warrior
lay at the feet of the protecting Athene (_Fig._ 200), while on each
side, symmetrically disposed, a combatant of either party endeavors to
seize the body and drag it forth from the fray. Above these stooping
figures warriors threaten each other with lances; but it is not certain
whether there were two or four of these actively engaged. The latter
number has been recently assumed from numerous fragmentary remains,
which, if appertaining to the group at all, it is impossible otherwise
to locate; the refutation of this theory of Lange, which has been
attempted by Julius, does not terminate the vexed question. These
warriors were followed, according to Brunn’s arrangement, by two
kneeling lance-bearers, perhaps protecting the two archers in similar
position with their shields. One of the archers is shown by a leathern
cuirass and the so-called Phrygian cap to be an Oriental, perhaps Paris.
With the exception of Heracles in the eastern gable, who is
characterized by his lion’s skin, none of the other combatants are
personally distinguishable. The corners of the triangle are filled by
two fallen warriors. The whole group is thus composed with strict
reference to symmetrical correspondence, and to the conditions imposed
by the gable; all attempt to attain relative action and realism is
abandoned, and the impression of a pantomime is inevitable. The outlines
of the bodies, their position and action, are correct even to the
minutest details, and show a certainty of form and a technical
perfection, which, in the absence of all support for the bodies, or for
the extreme thinness of the shields, is truly astonishing. The figures
of the eastern gable appear particularly perfect, and are apparently the
works of later sculptors, less limited, in point of style and artistic
ability, than the master, or masters, of the western group. If in the
latter, as before remarked, it is natural to think of Onatas, the former
is correspondingly attributable to Calliteles, the son, scholar, and
assistant of Onatas, who worked in great measure like his father, but
also under the progressive influence of a younger generation. In
remarkable contrast to the excellent and, in formal characterization,
almost faultless, anatomical treatment of the bodies, two things appear
particularly important as indicating the limits of the artistic ability
of the time--namely, all the heads and the two statues of the deity
Athene. The former are without ideal beauty or expression, for which the
sculptor evidently felt himself incapable. He therefore carved the
features according to a certain formula, and the apparent smile,
resulting from the mouth being drawn outward and the corners of the
eyelids extended, is to be regarded as a meaningless reminiscence of the
older style. The eyes are too protruding and the chin too pointed and
small, defects of the earlier practice, not as yet entirely overcome.
The Athene shows how obstinately the devotional images were denied the
advances made in other sculptures, so that the traditional and hallowed
type might be preserved, as much as possible, from change. While for the
other statues the artist had before his eyes the living combatants of
the palaistra, his model for this was the sacred image standing within
the temple. The evident contrast between the stiff bearing and archaic
garments of the Athene and the rest of the group is thus more naturally
explained than by the view that, in the artist’s conception, the goddess
did not need any real action, that a slight lifting of the shield, as a
divine “thus far and no farther,” was sufficient to show her
supernatural power and to protect the fallen. The awkward turn of the
feet, which was owing less to the limitations of space than to the
reminiscence of an antique devotional image, might the more safely be
ventured, because it could not be seen at all from below. That the
sculptor, however, in his loving devotion to his work, took small
advantage of this last consideration, is clear from the fact that the
bodies are as carefully finished upon the back as upon the front,
although one half of this labor could never have been appreciated from
the first installation of the figures until their discovery among the
overthrown ruins and their reception in the Munich Glyptothek. The
effect of the whole was essentially heightened by the bronze
accessories, such as lances, belts with swords, bows, arrows, a
Gorgoneion and serpents upon the aigis of Athene, etc.; and even more by
the intense red, blue, and other colors upon the helmets and waving
crests, shields, and borders of the garments, sandals, and leather-work,
as well as by the tinting of the hair, eyes, and lips--all which
painting was probably in strict harmony with the neighboring
architectural members, which were doubtless treated with similar
pigments. Of other statues of archaic stamp only one has proved to be
contemporaneous with, and of the same school as, the gable sculptures of
Ægina--namely, the so-called Strangford youth in the British Museum. The
work is more closely allied to the statues of the western than to those
of the later eastern gable of the temple; but, notwithstanding a marked
similarity in the treatment of the torso, the formation of the features
differs so distinctly that the figure can hardly be ascribed to the same
master. When Pausanias says of Onatas that, although belonging to Ægina,
he still does not rank him below any contemporaneous sculptor of Attica,
this summary praise speaks less directly for the individuality of Onatas
than for the decided relative position of the two schools. It shows that
in general the style of Ægina was esteemed inferior. It may be concluded
that there were at least three Athenian sculptors of this time who
surpassed the artists of the gable groups of the temple upon Ægina,
namely, Hegias (Hegesias), Critios, and Nesiotes, not to mention the
somewhat older Endoios, Antenor, and Amphicrates. Literary notices of
their works do not convey any valuable information; but Friedrichs has
discovered in the sculptures of the Museum of Naples which hitherto had
passed under the name of the Gladiators, copies from one of the best
works of Critios and Nesiotes. (_Fig._ 201.) They represent Harmodios
and Aristogeiton, the assassins of the tyrant Hipparchos,--a group
recognized by an Attic tetradrachm, by the relief ornamenting a marble
seat at Athens, and by a weaker reproduction now in the Giardino Boboli
at Florence. As copies of this kind do not allow definite conclusions
concerning the style of celebrated monuments, we must regard in them
only the general composition. They suffice, however, to show that the
figures, which are of a free and bold action, cannot be referred to the
Monument of Antenor, built as early as 509 B.C. Besides the schools of
Ægina and Athens, there were at this period sculptural workshops of good
repute in Sikyon, Argos, Corinth, and Thebes. As early as the time of
the Cretan Daidalidæ Dipoinos and Skyllis, Sikyon was one of the chief
cities of artistic industry; and at the beginning of the fifth century
two celebrated brothers, Canachos and Aristocles, stood at the head of a
local school which lasted for seven generations. The chief work of
Canachos, the colossal Apollo of the Branchidæ sanctuary in Miletos,
holding a movable, probably automatic, stag in the outstretched right
hand, is known only by representations upon coins, and by a bronze
statuette in the British Museum (_Fig._ 202); the latter shows that the
master was but little removed from the archaic hardness of earlier
times, though endeavoring to attain greater power and nobility of form,
particularly in the head and features. Another colossal Apollo by
Canachos in Thebes differed from the figure in Miletos in being made of
wood. The chryselephantine Aphrodite in Sikyon, represented with the
polos upon the head and with poppy flower and apples in the hands, must
have been particularly archaic in conception. Two other works, more
removed from hieratic influences and limitations, were probably of a
less restricted style; namely, the Muse with the Syrinx, executed with
two others by the master’s brother, Aristocles, and the Young Racers.
The school of Argos is celebrated by one great name, immediately
connected with the highest development of art, Ageladas, the
contemporary of the masters of Ægina, Athens, and Sikyon previously
mentioned. From the silence of ancient authors in regard to this
master’s style, little information can be given concerning it; it is
only known that the Muse with the Barbiton, his many figures of Zeus and
Heracles, various statues of victors, quadrigas, and groups of votive
offerings in Delphi, were of bronze. Ageladas was the teacher of three
of the greatest sculptors of Greece--Myron, Polycleitos, and Pheidias;
and he must, if on this account alone, be ranked above his
contemporaries. The history of art would receive but little furtherance
by a detailed consideration of the other Argive sculptors, Aristomedon,
Glaucos, and Dionysios; of the Corinthians, Diyllos, Amyclaios, and
Chionis; of the Thebans, Aristomedos, Socrates, and others; of Callon of
Elis; or of the Spartan Gitiades. Prominent as these must have been,
they appear rather to have demonstrated the vigor of their schools, and
the influence of those of Ægina and Athens, than by individual gifts to
have raised themselves above the academic art of their time. As masters
of personal importance, in whom the progress made by their own genius
far exceeded their early training, may be mentioned three younger
sculptors: Calamis, probably of Athens; Pythagoras of Rhegion, in Magna
Græcia; and Myron of Eleutheræ, on the borders of Bœotia. Calamis
worked chiefly in devotional figures, and in these could not entirely
throw off the hieratic limitations in regard to position and treatment
of details. He was accounted somewhat less hard in style than Canachos
or Callon, but inferior to Myron in truthfulness to nature. This master
seems to have made little advance in the modelling of the body as a
whole, though Lucian praises the rhythmical position of the feet and the
beauty of the joints of his Sosandra; but in the representation of the
head he succeeded in making decided progress when compared with the
artists of the gable groups of Ægina. In this respect his Alcmene must
have been highly important; but chief among the works of Calamis was the
Sosandra, probably an Aphrodite, which became proverbial on account of
its grace and beauty. Lucian, when comparing the most distinguished
examples among all the works of art to illustrate perfect beauty, did
this with the significant words, “Calamis may ornament our ideal with
chaste modesty, and its smile may be honorable and unconscious as that
of Sosandra.” In view of this judgment, it is plain that the stiff, ugly
heads of the Æginetan marbles are not to be imputed to the works of
Calamis; that the graceful and beautiful formation of the features was
one of the chief improvements effected by him. The limitations of his
art are indicated by another notice. Pliny relates that Calamis was
unsurpassed in his representations of horses; but Praxiteles removed a
charioteer from one of the older quadrigas, and created another in its
place, “that the men of Calamis might not appear inferior to his
animals.” His charioteer must consequently have contrasted unfavorably
with the horses and disturbed the harmony of the whole; this need by no
means be considered as contradictory to the accounts of the beauty of
his devotional images, for the charming grace which distinguished the
quiet figures of deities and heroes was to be exchanged in the
charioteer for an athletic life, corresponding, in position and action,
to the exciting situation, and such representations evidently were
beyond the powers of the otherwise able master. Examples authentically
referable to Calamis do not exist, though the statue of Apollo upon the
Omphalos, found in Athens, shows at once the archaic limitations and the
advancing mastery which may be ascribed to this period of Greek
sculpture; while the so-called Vesta, now in the possession of Torlonia,
may have preserved reminiscences of the Sosandra. Both these works are
evidently the products of artists who did not conceive the gods as
merely graceful and pleasing, but as strict and serious beings. Statues
of Apollo by Calamis are known to have been brought from the Kerameicos
in Athens, and from a city upon the shores of the Pontos, to the Roman
capitol; but this can hardly be adduced as an argument in favor of the
authenticity of the figure upon the Omphalos.
To those very points in which Calamis failed, the two other artists
named devoted themselves with signal success. The works of Pythagoras of
Rhegion, who limited himself to bronze as a material, while Calamis
worked in marble, gold, and ivory, betray no connection with those of
the latter in regard to subjects, for the greater number were statues of
victors and representations of heroes in somewhat genre-like conception.
Of the former, Pausanias and Pliny praise the Enthymos as one of the
most excellent among the forest of images dedicated at Olympia; of the
latter, the limping Philoctetes was celebrated by many epigrams, as
causing the observer to himself feel the pain of the wounded foot. To
attain such an expression, it is not sufficient to characterize the
suffering in the affected limb alone, but the pain must be evident in
the entire body, in bearing as well as in step; in the continued tension
of all the muscles, and in the one-sided strain upon the sound leg. The
Philoctetes illustrates an otherwise incomprehensible account of the
master’s ability. Diogenes of Laerte says that Pythagoras, of all
sculptors, first regarded rhythm and symmetry. This unity of motion or
rhythm, with the equipoise or symmetry which alone lends a feeling of
security and harmonious perfection to the different members of figures
under excitement, is that which made the work so effective. The same
principles must have distinguished the statues of victors, which were
apparently intended rather as examples of the various modes of combat,
or the preparations therefor, than as individual portraits. The chief
merit of this master appears, according to this, to have consisted in
the organic truthfulness to nature of his figures, and this is by no
means contradicted by the rather trivial judgment of Pliny that
Pythagoras was the first to indicate sinews and veins, and to more
carefully model the hair; for increased anatomical correctness came
naturally with the organic action and realism of these works.
[Illustration: Fig. 203.--Marble Copy of the Discos-thrower by Myron.
(In the Palazzo Massimi alle Colonne in Rome.)]
In this expression of the movement by every part of the body exercised,
Pythagoras was still surpassed by Myron. A founder of metal, like the
former, he acquired his fame chiefly as a maker of the statues of
victors, although, with acknowledged versatility, he executed numerous
images of deities and heroes. Two of the first were highly
celebrated--the Runner Ladas and the Discos-thrower; both of them
belonging to that class of works which illustrated the nature of the
game itself. For Ladas was shown at the moment when, after overstrained
effort, he had reached the goal, and there, as victor, had fallen dead:
according to the expression of an epigram upon the work, it was as if
the last breath from the empty lungs were passing his lips. For such a
creation even the most perfect position of running, and indication of
relative action in trunk and arms, were not sufficient; the great point
lay in the panting breast and the open mouth and nostrils: the last
effort of the lungs must have been wonderfully shown. Another epigram
speaks of the “_breather_,” not of the _runner_, Ladas. That this
marvellous representation of concentrated action was not to the
disadvantage of the outer members is shown by the other victor before
mentioned, the discos-thrower, the fame of which is demonstrated not
only by the praise of Lucian, but by the numerous copies made during
antiquity. Many of the latter have been preserved, marbles of the size
of the original, and bronze statuettes, giving evidence of the
fascinating action in the swing of the discos; the athletic body of the
youth bending forward to gain greater impetus; the toes of one foot
clinging to the ground, those of the other slid along its surface; and
everything prepared for the fling which is instantly to follow. And yet
the best-preserved copy, that in the Palazzo Massimi (_Fig._ 203), must
certainly be in every respect inferior to the original. A mythological
genre-group by Myron appears from existing copies to have been equally
effective: it illustrated the legend of the flute, invented and cast
away with a curse by Athene, and found by the unfortunate Marsyas.
Statues in the Lateran and British Museum show the Satyr starting back
in surprise, the momentary action of desire and fear being seized and
expressed with as consummate mastery as were the athletic movements of
the runner and the discos-thrower. It was this same spirit of life that
caused Myron’s cow to be so celebrated in antiquity that no less than
thirty-six epigrams have been handed down concerning it. Petronius, in
praising this master, says that, in representing animals, Myron seemed
to enclose the very breath of life in the bronze; and when Pliny says
that he multiplied nature, he can have no other meaning than that the
artist attained so life-like an effect that his works appeared rather to
have grown than to have been an artistic creation.
[Illustration: Fig. 204.--Statuette of the Athene Parthenos, Athens.]
[Illustration: Head of Pheidias.]
[Illustration: Fig. 205.--Fragment in the British Museum, imitated from
the Shield of the Athene Parthenos.]
The schools of Ægina, Athens, Sikyon, Argos, Rhegion, and the other
cities where art had chiefly centred, flourished during the Persian
wars--that greatest period of Greece, from 490 to 450 B.C., when Myron,
the scholar of Ageladas, was still young. The unequalled grandeur of
this age, which resulted in the splendid culmination of all Hellenic
life, must have furthered art, all the more as the devastation of the
war, and the subsequent enrichment of the victors, offered full
opportunity and means for monumental activity. What influence this had
upon architectural industry has been described in a foregoing section,
and it may be easily understood that sculpture went hand-in-hand with
this; the larger temples needed their images of the gods, their gable
groups, metope reliefs, and friezes, as also their complement of
sculptural votive offerings, prompted by the gratitude of the victors.
Athens, more than any other place in Greece, found occasion and means
for these works, having been laid waste in 480 and 479 B.C. by Xerxes
and Mardonios as no other large city of Greece had been. By means of the
taxes levied upon the confederated states after the siege of Mycale,
its possessions were greater than those of all the other Hellenic
republics together. Athens therefore saw the most perfect flower of
Grecian architecture come forth from the ashes of the Persian
catastrophe, and by its side appeared the grandest creations of
sculpture. Yet neither of these arose like magic from the wasted ground;
it was necessary that the nation should first take breath, should
recover from the almost supernatural exertions made during the war, and
provide for defence and shelter by the building of fortifications and
dwellings. It was not until after this that they could devote themselves
to great monumental undertakings, the perfect completion of which
required more than one generation, and sculptured ornamentation was thus
still further postponed. The older masters hitherto considered had
little or no part in the chief works of this period. The mind of
Themistocles was so practical, and so much directed towards
fortifications, that he could have little thought for occupying the
artists with monumental sculpture. His successor, Kimon, son of
Miltiades, began to build anew the places of worship, but did not go so
far as to institute sculptural ornament, at least in its chief
constituent, statuary. This first ripened to perfection in the reign of
Pericles, and a favorable fate ordained that, just at this time, when it
was needed as never before, a genius appeared under whose guidance the
most complete development was attained. This greatest of sculptors was
Pheidias, the son of Charmides, an Athenian by birth. When a boy of ten
years, he had seen his countrymen, under Miltiades, go forth to
Marathon, and, as a youth, had shared in the rejoicing over the glorious
victory of Salamis. At that time, having probably left the school of
Hegias, his first teacher, he turned towards Ageladas the Argive, who
may have come to Athens in order that, in the rebuilding of the city, he
might employ his art in works which have remained unknown to us. When
Pericles entered upon his much celebrated presidency (444 B.C.),
Pheidias, already advanced in years, enjoyed a fame so great throughout
all Greece that, as soon as Pericles had installed him at the head of
the entire monumental work of Athens, artists of distinguished rank
placed themselves, without envy, under his lead. With only the scanty
and scattered literary notices that we possess, it is impossible, from
the works of this master, to illustrate his life before the time of
Pericles, these being not only imperfectly known, but connected with but
few chronological facts. Chief among his productions is to be mentioned
a group in bronze consecrated at Delphi by the Athenians under Kimon,
from a tithe of the booty taken at Marathon. It represented Miltiades
between Athene and Apollo, surrounded by the ancestral heroes of the ten
Attic Phylæ. In artistic respects nothing more is known of this than of
the statue of a youth crowning himself with the victor’s band in
Olympia; of a wounded Amazon, a work prepared for a competition in which
Pheidias was surpassed by Polycleitos; of a marble Hermes in Thebes; or
of three draped statues of Aphrodite, one of which, that in Elis, was
chryselephantine, the other two having been of marble. The artist
employed his powers mostly in a higher province--in figures of Athene
and of Zeus. Six of the former are more or less known; the most
celebrated was the bronze Athene of Lemnos upon the Acropolis of Athens,
so called because dedicated by Attic colonists from that place, and
distinguished by the name of “the beautiful;” a second was the colossal
statue, likewise of bronze, standing between the Erechtheion and the
Propylæa, whose helmet-crest and lance-point gleamed above the roof of
the Parthenon, twenty metres high, and was visible at sea as far as the
promontory of Sunion. The shield standing upon the ground--and perhaps a
later creation--was ornamented by Mys, after a design by Parrhasios,
with an embossed centauromachia. Not to speak of the Athene Areia at
Platæa, a colossal wooden figure with garments of gold, the nude parts
being of marble, we come finally to the incomparable chryselephantine
figure in the Parthenon at Athens, in which the type of Athene was
forever firmly established. Some few accounts--a marble statuette
lately found in Athens (_Fig._ 204), a miserably careless imitation; and
also a poor copy in marble of the shield, discovered soon after, in the
British Museum (_Fig._ 205)--render it possible to understand the
composition in its chief outlines. Standing erect, the head slightly
inclined forward, clothed with the sleeveless chiton and the ægis, the
helmet decorated with the sphinx, she supported her left arm upon the
shield, at the same time holding the lance, which leaned against her
shoulder and bore the serpent of Erichthonios, coiling upward; the right
arm, outstretched, carried a figure of Victory, two metres in height,
which, turned towards the goddess, offered her a wreath of gold. The
base of the statue, and even the rims of the thick-soled sandals, were
ornamented with reliefs. The golden shield showed, within, the
gigantomachia, and, without, the battle of the Amazons, concerning
which we have further information from the discovery above mentioned.
The fatal portrait of the artist himself may be plainly recognized in
the strongly individualized features of a bald-headed man with the
battle-axe in his uplifted hands, prominent because of his almost entire
nakedness among the completely equipped youths. This portrait caused the
merciless persecution of the sculptor and his patrons; after the charge
of embezzling the gold upon the garments of the Athene had been proved
groundless by the removal and weighing of the metal, this figure gave
opportunity for complaint of sacrilege, and the artist was forced to
pass the remainder of his life in a prison. The Athene Parthenos was
surpassed by the colossal statue of the Panhellenic Zeus in Olympia,
likewise chryselephantine, which exhibited the highest triumph of
Pheidias. The god, with a green enamelled olive-wreath crowning his
golden locks, and in garments brightly bordered with gold, was seated
upon a magnificent throne, the legs of which were ornamented with
figures of Victory in two rows, and the arms with sphinxes, while the
back was terminated with groups of Horæ and Charites, the steps,
cross-bars, sheathing-boards, etc., of the support being decorated with
many other sculptures in the round and in relief. In his right hand,
turning towards him, was a Victory, and in his left a sceptre, tipped
with the eagle, formed from a combination of many metals. This figure
was majestic, with an expression mild, yet so powerful that a gesture
would seem sufficient to make earth and heaven tremble. The artist had
made this double expression his aim, guided in his creation by the lines
of Homer where he portrays the God of gods nodding in assent to Thetis,
who begs for the glorification of her son Achilles:
“He said, and nodded with his shadowy brows,
Wav’d on th’ immortal head th’ ambrosial locks,
And all Olympos trembled at his nod.”
[Illustration: Fig. 206.--Coins of Elis. One third enlarged.]
[Illustration: Fig. 207.--From the Eastern Gable of the Parthenon.
Demeter and Persephone.]
[Illustration: Fig. 208.--From the Eastern Gable of the Parthenon.
Aphrodite and Peitho.]