ANCIENT ITALIAN SCULPTURE.
Ancient Italian sculpture was essentially Greek in its spirit, and
originated with the Etruscans, a very ancient people in Italy. There are
traces of an Oriental influence in the art of Etruria--a suggestion of
the sculpture of Egypt and Assyria, just as there is in Greek archaic
art; but the real feeling and spirit of it is Greek, and must have been
borrowed from Greece in some way.
The different theories and opinions about the Etruscans and their origin
do not concern us here; we have to do only with their sculpture as it is
seen in the remnants of it now in existence. In the beginning the
Etruscans made their statues of clay; marble was very rarely used. Later
on they learned the art of working in bronze, and carried it to great
perfection. Their bronze works were so numerous that in B.C. 295 Fulvius
Flaccus is said to have carried away two thousand statues from Volsinii
alone. Some of their figures were colossal, but the greater number were
statuettes.
There are some Etruscan bronzes remaining in the museums of Europe. The
Etruscans always were copyists rather than original artists; but they
copied such excellent things, and did it so well, that their productions
are by no means to be despised, and the skill which they acquired caused
their bronze and metal work to be highly valued, even in Athens itself.
The Etruscans were physically a more luxurious people than the Greeks,
as may be seen in the pictures of them which still remain in the tombs
of Corneto and other places. They gave much attention to luxury of
living, and the richly decorated goblets and other articles of table
furniture which they made may be seen in the Vatican and British Museum,
while the delicate and artistic gold work of their personal ornaments is
still much admired and copied diligently.
The Romans as a people were patrons of art rather than artists. They
seem from very early days to have admired the plastic art of other
nations; but of Romans themselves there were very few sculptors; their
artists were architects of grand structures rather than workers in the
lesser monuments of artistic skill and genius. At first, as we have
said, they relied upon the Etruscans, who built their earliest temples
and adorned them with sculptures, and the first record which we have of
Greek artists working in Rome gives us the names of Damophilus and
Gorgasus, who decorated the temple of Ceres with paintings and
sculptures. This temple was consecrated in B.C. 493; if its adornment
was of the same date, the knowledge of Greek art was brought to Rome at
a very early period--at least fifty-six years before the completion of
the Parthenon.
But the means by which the whole Roman people were made familiar with
the beauties of Greek art are to be found in another direction. It was
not the building of their own temples, or any work done by Greek artists
in Rome, that gave the Romans their love and appreciation for art; it
was rather the art spoils seized by their victorious leaders and brought
home to adorn and beautify every portion of the Eternal City. In B.C.
212 Marcellus carried to Rome the spoils he had taken at Syracuse; he
exhibited them in his triumphal procession, and afterward consecrated
them in the temple of Honor and Valor which he built. From this time it
was the fashion to bring home all the choice things that Roman
conquerors could seize, and the number of beautiful objects thus gained
for Rome was marvellous.
When Flaminius defeated Philip of Macedon it required two days to gather
up the spoils. After Fulvius Nobilior conquered the AEtolians he brought
Greek artists to Rome to arrange his festivities, and he exhibited five
hundred and fifteen bronze and marble statues which he had taken from
the defeated people. When Perseus of Macedon was overcome by AEmilius
Paulus it required two hundred and fifty wagons to remove the pictures
and statues alone which he displayed in his triumphal procession; among
these treasures there was a statue of Athena by Phidias himself. This
work of spoiling the Grecian cities which came into their power was
diligently carried on by Mummius, Sulla, and others, until at length the
Emperor Augustus removed many of the archaic sculptures to Rome. But the
works which best pleased the Romans were those of the later school of
Athens. The ruling gods at Rome were Mars, Bacchus, and Venus, and the
statues of these deities were much valued.
So far, to the time of Augustus, the statues and other objects removed
had been the spoils of war; but Caligula and Nero did not hesitate to go
in times of peace and act the part of robbers. The first sent a consul
in A.D. 31 with orders to bring the best works of art from Greece to
Rome to adorn his villas; Nero went so far as to send his agents to
bring even the images of the deities from the most sacred temples,
together with the offerings made to them, for the decoration of his
Golden House; it is said that from Delphi alone he received five hundred
statues of bronze.
At first the larger number of these art spoils were so placed as to be
constantly seen by the whole Roman people, and there is no doubt that
their influence was very great and went far to refine their ideas and
to prepare the way for the polish and grace of the Augustan age. Very
soon the individual desire for works of art was felt, and wealthy men
began to decorate their homes with pictures and statues; and at last
these things were thought to be necessary to the proper enjoyment of
life.
From all these causes there came about a revival of Greek art under the
Romans, and in it many beautiful works were produced. Indeed, the
greater portion of the sculptures which are now the pride of the
collections all over Europe belong to this period. It cannot be said
that the artists of this date originated much, but they followed the
greatest masters that ever lived; and if they repeated their subjects
they so changed them to suit the spirit of their time that they gave
their works a certain effect of being something new, and threw their own
individuality about them.
The list of names which can be given as belonging to Greek sculptors who
worked at Rome is long, and would have little interest here. Instead of
speaking of the artists I shall speak of the most famous works of the
time which remain; most of these are so placed that they are seen by
travellers, and have become familiar to all the world.
The beautiful statue which is known as the Venus de' Medici is so called
because after its discovery it rested for a time in the Medici Palace in
Rome. It was found in the seventeenth century in the Portico of Octavia
at Rome, and was broken into eleven fragments. The arms from the elbows
down are restored; when it was found it had traces of gilding on the
hair; the ears are pierced, as if gold rings had sometimes been placed
in them. In 1680 Duke Cosmo III. removed it to Florence, where it is the
chief glory of the famous Tribune of the Uffizi Gallery. Many persons
believe this to have been a copy of the renowned Cnidian Venus by
Praxiteles, of which I have told you. This Venus de' Medici was the
work of an Athenian artist named Cleomenes. He was the son of
Apollodorus, a sculptor who lived in Rome in the first or second century
of the Christian era. (Fig. 57.)
[Illustration: FIG. 57.--VENUS DE' MEDICI.]
The aim of the sculptor was not to make a goddess, and his work lacks
the dignity which was thrown around the more ancient statues of Venus.
Cleomenes endeavored to produce a lovely woman in the youth of her
beauty. Some critics believe that this Venus is intended to represent
the moment when that goddess stood before Paris for judgment. If this
story is not well known I will tell how when Peleus and Thetis were
married they invited all the gods to their wedding save the goddess
Discordia, and she was so offended by this slight that she threw into
the midst of the assembly a golden apple on which were the words, "To
the fairest." Juno, Minerva, and Venus all claimed it, and Jupiter sent
Mercury to conduct these three beautiful goddesses to Paris, that he
might decide to which it belonged. His decision gave the apple to Venus;
and this so excited the jealousy and hatred of the others that a long
list of serious troubles arose until Paris was driven out of Greece,
and, going to the house of Menelaus, he saw and loved Helen, carried her
off to Troy, and thus brought on the Trojan war of which the world has
heard so much ever since. If I were writing a Sunday-school book I could
draw many lessons from this story; but as I am only writing about art, I
will go back and remind you that many persons try to study these old
statues and to find out exactly what they mean; some such students say
that the moment when Paris pronounced Venus to be the most lovely of the
goddesses is the time represented by the sculptor of the Venus de'
Medici.
As Venus was the goddess of Love and Beauty, it was natural that statues
of her should be multiplied. The Chigi Venus in the Vatican has much the
same pose as the Venus de' Medici, but she holds the end of a fringed
garment in her hand. The Venus of the Capitol, in Rome, is larger than
these; the Venus Callipiga, which was found in the Golden House of Nero,
and is now in the Museum of Naples, is also worthy of being mentioned in
company with these other exquisite sculptures.
However, there is yet another Venus more admirable and more praised than
these. She is called the Venus of Milo, or Melos, and is in the gallery
of the Louvre, at Paris. This statue is probably of a later date than
those of which we have spoken, and is thought to be the work of
Alexandros, the son of Menides of Antiocheia, or one of those sculptors
who are called Asiatic Greeks. It is said that the base of this statue
with the name of the artist upon it was destroyed, for the purpose of
leading the King of France to believe it to be more ancient than it
really is (Fig. 58, _frontispiece_).
This magnificent statue was discovered in 1820 by a peasant of the town
of Melos, or Milo, on the island of the same name. It was in a niche of
a wall which had long been buried. The Marquis of Riviere, who was the
French Ambassador at Constantinople, purchased it and presented it to
King Louis XVIII., who placed it in the Louvre. It is made from two
blocks of marble joined above the drapery which envelops the legs. As
the statue now stands it has the tip of the nose and the foot which
projects beyond the drapery as they have been restored by modern
artists.
This is the only Venus which has come down to us from the past which
represents a goddess rather than a beautiful woman. The form has beauty
of the highest type, but it has a grandeur which exalts it far above
mere beauty. The pure, majestic expression of the head and face speak
the calm dignity of a superior being. I shall quote from Perry, who
says: "The Venus de Milo is justly admired, not only for the grandeur of
its design, the perfection of its proportion, and the exquisite moulding
of the superb and luxuriant form, but for the vivid freshness of the
flesh and the velvet softness of the skin, in which it stands unrivalled
in ancient and modern art. The extraordinary skill with which minute
details, such as the folds of the skin in the neck, are harmonized with
the ideal beauty of the whole is beyond all imitation and all praise.
The life-like effect of this wonderful masterpiece is greatly enhanced
by the rare and perfect preservation of the epidermis and by the
beautiful warm, yellowish tinge which the lapse of centuries has given
to the marble."
In the Museum at Naples is the Farnesian Hercules, which was found in
the Baths of Caracalla, in Rome, in 1540. It was first placed in the
Farnese Palace, and from that circumstance received the name by which it
is known. It is the work of Glycon, an Athenian, and his name is
inscribed upon it. There is little doubt that this is a copy of a more
ancient statue by the great Lysippus; that master created
representations of Hercules in all ages and forms. Glycon probably
worked in the time of Hadrian; and though he copied the design and form
of Lysippus, he exaggerated some points so as to injure the effect of
the whole. For example, the head is small in proportion to the breadth
of the breast and shoulders; and because Hercules was a swift runner the
sculptor has made the legs too long to be natural. It is in such
particulars as these that the decline of art may be traced, even in
works that command admiration (Fig. 59).
The moment in which the god is represented is that which immediately
followed his securing the apples of the Hesperides, the wedding present
of Ge to Juno. Of all the labors of Hercules, perhaps this was the most
arduous. Juno had left these apples with the Hesperides for safekeeping.
These goddesses lived on Mount Atlas, and the serpent Ladon helped them
to guard their precious trust. Hercules did not know just where the
apples were kept, and this made his task all the more difficult. When,
therefore, he arrived at Mount Atlas he offered to hold up the world for
Atlas if he would go and fetch the apples. This Atlas did, but refused
to take the weight from Hercules again. However, Hercules took the
apples and hastened to his master, Eurystheus, with them. While
performing this labor he had a terrible struggle with Ladon, and some
accounts say that he killed the monster.
[Illustration: FIG. 59.--THE FARNESIAN HERCULES.]
Now, the statue represents the god with the apples in his right hand,
the world held on his back, while he leans heavily on his club covered
with a lion's skin. All the muscles of his body are swollen from his
struggle; his head droops, his whole expression of face and form is that
of sadness and weariness. The youthfulness and strength with which the
older sculptors invested him is not here. It is a splendid work, but it
is not of the best; it belongs to an age when there was too much
straining after effect, when the moderation of the best Greek masters
did not satisfy the spirit of the time; and no sculptor lived whose
power equalled that of Phidias or Lysippus.
There are some reliefs and vases of this Roman period that are very
interesting. I shall speak of but one relief--the Sacrifice of
Iphigenia, which is in Florence. It is called the work of Cleomenes, and
his name is inscribed upon it; but there is some doubt as to the
genuineness of the inscription. This relief is very beautiful. It
represents a priest cutting off the hair of the lovely maiden as a
preparation for her sacrifice.
[Illustration: FIG. 60.--THE APOLLO BELVEDERE.]
The story runs that Iphigenia was the daughter of Agamemnon, who killed
a hart sacred to Diana. To revenge this act the goddess becalmed the
Greek fleet on its way to Aulis. The seer Calchas advised Agamemnon to
sacrifice his daughter to appease Diana; this he consented to do, but
Diana put a hart in the place of the maiden, whom she bore to Tauris and
made a priestess. In this relief the maiden has an air of resigned
grief; her father stands by himself with his head covered. The sculptor
of this relief was not the first who had represented Agamemnon thus, for
a painter, Timanthes, had made a picture of this subject about B.C. 400,
and in describing it Quintilian said that "when he had painted Calchas
sad, Ulysses sadder, and had represented in the face of Menelaus the
most poignant grief that art can express, having exhausted the deepest
feelings and finding no means of worthily portraying the countenance of
_the father_, he covered his head and left it to every man's own heart
to estimate his sufferings."
[Illustration: FIG. 57.--VENUS DE' MEDICI.]
I come now to the Apollo Belvedere, one of the most celebrated of all
the statues in the Vatican, and the best known and most universally
admired of all the ancient statues which remain to us. It was found at
about the end of the fifteenth century at the ancient city of Antium,
where it probably made one of the ornaments of the Imperial Palace. The
authorities upon such subjects have never yet agreed as to whether the
marble from which it is cut is a marble of Greece or of Italy (Fig. 60).
[Illustration: FIG. 62.--THE STEINHAeUSER HEAD.]
This statue has been lauded in all tongues of the civilized world, and
nothing could be added to what has been said in its praise; and yet all
who see it wish to exalt it still higher if possible. A few years ago
another head of Apollo, of Greek marble, was found in a magazine in
Rome, by Herr Steinhaeuser, by whose name it is known; it is now in the
museum at Basle (Figs. 61, 62).
Though this statue has been so much studied and admired it has never yet
been satisfactorily explained, and there are several important questions
about it which cannot be answered with certainty. Nothing is known of
its age or of the name of its sculptor. It is not described by any
ancient writer, neither can any one say whether it is an original or a
copy; and above all in importance is the question of what this beautiful
young god is doing--what is the meaning of it?
[Illustration: FIG. 63.--THE STROGANOFF APOLLO.]
The answers of the authorities to these queries vary so much that here I
shall only mention the theory which I love, and which is accepted by
many. When the statue was found the left hand was missing, and a bow was
believed to have been the article which it held; and it was said that
Apollo had just shot an arrow on some dreadful flight, and was watching
for its effect. This theory was the principal one until 1860, when a
scholar, Stephani, called attention to the fact that in St. Petersburg
there is a bronze statuette, less than two feet high, which is almost
exactly the same as the Apollo Belvedere--too nearly the same to be an
accidental likeness. Now, as this is an antique bronze, it seems to
prove that both it and the marble of the Vatican are copies of an
ancient work. The statuette is called the Stroganoff Apollo, because it
belongs to the collection of a nobleman of that name. It is believed to
be one of a number of bronzes which were found near Janina in 1792, and
given by the son of Ali Pasha to his physician, Dr. Frank (Fig. 63).
The chief importance of this discovery was the fact that the left hand
was perfect, and did not hold a bow, but some soft, elastic substance
which Stephani believes to be the aegis, or shield, of Jupiter, on which
was the head of Medusa. The sight of this shield paralyzed those who saw
it; and though it belonged to Jupiter and Minerva, Jupiter sometimes
lent it to his son Apollo to aid him in his warfare; such instances are
recorded by Homer. After Stephani had told his idea of it, the German
scholar Ludwig Preller pointed out what seems to be the true meaning of
it by suggesting that Apollo was extending this dreadful _aegis_ before
the sight of the Gauls at Delphi, in B.C. 279. History relates that when
the Gauls approached Delphi the people asked the oracle if they should
carry away and conceal the treasures of the temple. The oracle replied,
"I myself and the White Maidens (meaning Athena and Artemis) will take
care of that." Then four thousand Greeks stood by ready to defend the
sacred place; but in the midst of the battle the youthful god came down
through the roof of the temple, and the White Maidens left their own
altars to aid him in driving back the barbarous foe. A great tempest
arose, and rocks fell from Parnassus on the heads of the Gauls, and it
seemed as if all the powers of heaven and earth had united to sustain
the Greeks against their enemies. It is also written that the spectres
of Greek heroes who had long been dead were seen in the midst of the
battle dealing death upon the Gauls. But above all the fury of the
tempest and the noise of war the clashing of the shield and spear of
Athena and the twanging sound of the oft-discharged bow of Artemis were
heard, while the flash of the awful shield of Apollo was seen to be even
more vivid and terrific than the forked lightnings themselves.
It is recorded that after this victory two statues of Apollo and one
each of Athena and Artemis were offered in the temple of Apollo as
thank-offerings for its preservation and the victory over the Gauls. It
is delightful to regard the Apollo Belvedere as a copy of one of these,
and this view of it is most satisfying. Luebke, in speaking of this
theory, says: "Not till now have we understood the Apollo Belvedere. In
unveiled beauty we see the elegant form of the slender figure, the left
shoulder only being covered by the chlamys, which falls down over the
arm, which, far outstretched, holds the aegis with its Medusa head. The
right arm is slightly turned aside, but both hands have been unskilfully
restored. The attitude of the god is full of pathos, and is conceived at
a dramatic moment. Ardently excited and filled with divine anger, with
which is mingled a touch of triumphant scorn, the intellectual head is
turned sideward, while the figure, with elastic step, is hastening
forward. The eye seems to shoot forth lightning; there is an expression
of contempt in the corners of the mouth, and the distended nostrils seem
to breathe forth divine anger. It is a bold attitude thus transfixed in
marble, full of life-like and excited action."
In the Iliad Homer describes the scene when Jupiter gave the aegis to
Apollo, that he might put the Achaeans to flight with it. In connection
with the Apollo Belvedere it is well to recall that description which is
thus translated by Lord Derby
"While Phoebus motionless his aegis held,
Thick flew the shafts, and fast the people fell
On either side; but when he turned its flash
Full in the faces of the astonished Greeks,
And shouted loud, their spirits within them quailed,
Their fiery courage borne in mind no more."
It is very interesting to know that many who believe that the Apollo
Belvedere represents that god when terrifying the Gauls, believe also
that the statues of the "White Maidens" rushing forth from their temples
to aid him are in existence, the Artemis being the statue at the Louvre
known as "_Diane a la Biche_" and the Minerva being the Athena with
spear and shield in the museum of the Capitol at Rome.
This statue of Artemis, or Diana, has been in France since the time of
Henry IV. Formerly it was at Versailles, but is now one of the treasures
of the Louvre. The left hand with the bow is restored. The effect of the
figure is that of lightness combined with strength. She is going forward
rapidly, with her eyes fixed on some distant object, and draws an arrow
from her quiver even as she flies. This figure corresponds to the Apollo
Belvedere in its spirit and apparent earnestness of purpose; it is of
the same proportions, and in such details of treatment as the rich
sandals it plainly belongs to the time and the school of the
Apollo--indeed, there is no reason why it might not have formed a part
of a group in which the Apollo stood. (Fig. 64.)
[Illustration: FIG. 64.--DIANE A LA BICHE.]
If we think of this Diana simply as an ideal huntress hastening to the
chase the statue is very beautiful, and a remarkable example of such a
subject; but when she is regarded as one of the "White Maidens" rushing
forth to aid her brother in defending his temple against a barbarous
enemy she is invested with a deeper interest; she becomes an important
actor in a terrible drama, and those of us who could have no sympathy
with her love for hunting are roused to an enthusiastic hope that she
will succeed in doing her part to turn the savage foe away from the
sacred hill of Pytho, and thus preserve its temple and its treasures.
The statue of Athena, advancing with spear and shield, is supposed to be
a third member of the group which commemorated the victory over the
Gauls. The position of the two goddesses would indicate that they were
represented as hastening from opposite directions toward the Apollo
Belvedere, the central figure of the whole. The whole bearing of this
statue carries out the impression which Homer gives of the delight with
which Athena led the Greeks to battle; she is full of eagerness, and
rushes forward with the undaunted vigor of the confidence and courage of
one who goes to fight for a just and holy cause (Fig. 65).
[Illustration: FIG. 65.--ATHENA OF THE CAPITOL.]
Whether this "Gallic theory," as it is called, concerning the Apollo,
Diana, and Athena be correct or no, it is the most satisfactory in
sentiment of any that has been advanced, and certainly, when we consider
the three statues in this connection, there is nothing inharmonious in
the supposition that they made the important parts of a whole which may
have had many other figures of lesser importance in it.
There are many other statues of the Roman period in various museums, but
I shall leave this part of our subject here, and speak briefly of the
historical sculpture in the reliefs upon the triumphal arches of the
Eternal City. In an age when martial glory was the chief desire of man,
and among a people who accorded to successful generals the highest
honors, it was most natural that the conquerors should desire to place
some monument of their exploits where it would be constantly before the
eyes of the people, and thus keep in perpetual remembrance their valiant
deeds and their great successes.
[Illustration: FIG. 66.--TRIUMPHAL PROCESSION FROM ARCH OF TITUS.]
We read that pictures of the foreign scenes of sieges and battles were
displayed in public places in Rome at a very early date. We cannot find
records of plastic works of this sort before the time of the emperors,
but after such sculptures came into favor they were multiplied rapidly.
The principal historical reliefs in Rome were upon the arches of
Claudius, Titus, Trajan, Marcus Aurelius, and Septimius Severus, and on
the architrave of the temple of Minerva in the Forum.
Of the arch of Claudius there are some remaining fragments of sculpture,
now in the Villa Borghese. The arch of Titus was erected to celebrate
the taking of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. It was restored in 1822. The frieze
represents both a triumphal procession and one of sacrifice. The picture
we give here shows a company of warriors in the dress of peace, who bear
articles of booty taken from the conquered city. They have the
candelabra with seven branches, the table of the shew-bread, the silver
trumpets, etc. This will give you a good idea of these reliefs. (Fig.
66.)
The arch of Trajan no longer stands, and its reliefs are now on the arch
of Constantine; but Trajan's Pillar is one of the best preserved of all
the antique monuments of Rome, and with some account of this column and
a picture from it we will leave the historical sculptures of Rome. The
Senate and people of Rome decreed that this column should be erected to
the memory of Trajan, and it was in the centre of the Forum which bore
the same name--the Forum Trajani. The column is about one hundred and
six feet high, and originally was surmounted by a bronze statue of
Trajan, which was replaced by one of St. Peter by Pope Sixtus V. A band
of reliefs runs around this pillar in a spiral form; this band is six
hundred feet long, and the sculptures represent Trajan's campaign
against the Dacians. Many of the figures lose their effect on account of
the height at which they are placed. There are more than a hundred
scenes upon it, in which are about twenty-five hundred human figures,
besides many horses and other objects. The whole is executed with the
greatest care.
The real object of the whole work was to glorify the Emperor Trajan, and
he is represented in many of the scenes; sometimes he is conducting
engagements, storming a fort, or encouraging his troops; again he is
holding an audience, protecting the women of a conquered city, or
sitting in judgment on captives. Fig. 67 represents the Dacians
assaulting a Roman fort. It is winter, and while some have crossed the
ice in safety, others have broken through. Everything about it is
represented in the most life-like and matter-of-fact manner, and this
shows distinctly the principal difference between the Greek and the
Roman art when the latter was not influenced by the former. It is pure,
realistic, historical sculpture, and this pillar shows this at its very
best estate; it is a splendid specimen of this kind of art. In all these
many scenes there are but two mythological figures: one is Selene, used
to represent Night, and the other is _Jupiter tonans,_ who indicates
Storm. But the correctness and elegance of the sculptures show what the
Greek teaching did for the Romans; for it was to the Greeks that the
latter owed their knowledge of the human form and their power to render
it properly in sculpture.
[Illustration: FIG. 67.--FROM THE RELIEFS OF TRAJAN'S COLUMN.]
The last sort of ancient sculpture of which I shall speak is portrait
sculpture, and perhaps this belongs also to historical sculpture, for it
is by means of statues and busts that we know the faces and forms of
many of the great men and women who hold their places in the regard of
the world through all the centuries, because they were concerned in the
events which make up what we call the history of the world. We have said
that in Greece in very early times there were no portrait sculptures;
gradually they were introduced until, in the time of Alexander, portrait
statues were almost numberless, and these and busts were used for the
decoration of libraries and public buildings, as well as for the
adornment of squares and places of resort in the open air.
The finest life-size statue which remains from the Greeks is that of
Sophocles, of which we give a picture (Fig. 68). It was not found until
about 1839, and was presented to Pope Gregory XVI. by Cardinal
Antonelli; it is in the museum of the Lateran. This engraving from it
shows its beauties so well that it is scarcely needful to speak of it in
detail. This statue is valuable not only as a portrait of Sophocles, but
as a representation of a true product of the highest and best of
Athenian civilization and culture; of an elegant, aristocratic man who
was trained in gymnastic and warlike exercises which developed his
physical parts, as well as in science, philosophy, and music--in various
deep studies and lighter accomplishments which rendered him profound and
scholarly, and at the same time elegant and graceful. "The attitude,
though simple, is well chosen to show the most graceful lines of the
figure; and the position of the arms--the one gracefully enveloped in
the himation, and the other firmly planted on the hip--gives to the
whole form an air of mingled ease and dignity. The face is handsome and
full of winning grace, and bears the stamp not only of the creative
genius of the poet, but of the experience of the active citizen; of one
who has felt both the joys and the sufferings of human lot, and
preserved amid them the constitutional calmness, the gentle benevolence,
the tranquil, meditative piety for which he was renowned and loved by
the people among whom he lived and sang."
[Illustration: FIG. 68.--PORTRAIT STATUE OF SOPHOCLES.]
Among the Romans portrait sculpture held a position of importance. This
people had always placed great value upon the likenesses of the dead,
and from the earliest times had used different means of making them. In
the very early days of the nation the custom prevailed of making masks
of the faces of the dead in wax, and these masks were worn in the
funeral procession by one of the mourners, who also wore the dress and
insignia of the departed. The first aim in these masks was to have an
exact resemblance to the dead; and this idea was carried on through all
the eras of Roman art, and is a strong distinguishing feature between
Greek and Roman sculpture; for while the Greeks wished to reproduce the
face of one of whom they made a bust or statue, they did not hesitate to
idealize that face; but the Romans labored to make an exact likeness of
the man, leaving him in his statue as nothing more than he looked to be.
This manner of portraiture often does great injustice to its model, for
the changing expressions which come with emotions and with conversation
often illuminate the plainest faces with a rare beauty; therefore the
aim of portraiture should be to give the very most and best that can be
imagined as coming to the face which is reproduced.
[Illustration: FIG. 69.--STATUE OF AUGUSTUS.]
I can speak of but a few of the almost numberless Roman portrait
sculptures.
This statue of Augustus was found in 1863 in a villa built by his wife,
Livia, about nine miles from Rome, at Porta Prima. It is a noble work,
and every minute detail of the ornamentation has a force and meaning
that can be explained. At the same time the whole work is full of
strength and dignity, which comes from the character of the man himself,
and is in no sense dependent on all the emblems of his rank and power,
with which the dress is loaded (Fig. 69). This statue is in the Vatican,
and there one can compare it with the exquisite bust known as the "Young
Augustus" and with the statue of the emperor when aged, in which he is
veiled as a priest. The study of these three sculptures, thus
fortunately near each other, is most interesting.
[Illustration: FIG. 70.--AGRIPPINA THE ELDER.]
The Roman women who held important positions were frequently honored
with statues. Among those that remain none is more interesting than this
of the elder Agrippina. She was a woman of great strength and equally
great purity of character, and as we study this statue we can easily
understand that she could perform the duties of a general when occasion
demanded this service, and when that necessity was past could nurse the
sick and wounded with all the tenderness of a true womanly nature. It is
in every way a noble work of art, combining grace, dignity, and the
aristocratic refinement of a high-born lady. The drapery of this and
other similar statues is very beautiful, and fully satisfies all
artistic demands. We have full proof that such garments were in actual
use by the women of Greece and Rome (Fig. 70).
It was not unusual for the great men and women of Rome to be represented
in portrait statues with the attributes of gods and goddesses. Livia
appears as Ceres, Julia as Flora, and so on; and during the best days of
Roman art these statues were very beautiful. But at last they, like all
other sculptures, grew less and less worthy, until they became
positively absurd, and lacked any power to command our admiration.
What is thus true of portrait sculpture is true of all Roman art. Its
decline kept step with the decline of the nation, and both fell at
length into a pitiable state of feebleness and corruption. From this we
are glad to turn to the study of Christian art, which, even in its
primary struggles, when groping its way through ignorance and
helplessness, was still a living thing, and held the promise of a new
life--a _renaissance_ of that which had gradually died in Greece and
Rome.