SCULPTURE 



265 



Assyrian sculpture, which grew out of the ruder 

 art of Chakla?a, like Egyptian, knew neither pro- 

 gress nor development. Its earliest monuments 

 date from the 12th century B.C., but the mag- 

 iiificent series of reliefs in the British Museum are 

 not earlier than the 9th and 8th centuries, and they 

 display the inflexible characteristics of the most 

 ancient period. The kings and viziers, who figure 

 in the reliefs, conform to an invariable type. The 

 monarch is recognised by his square-cut beard and 

 jewelled tiara. He is often represented, like the 

 figures of Egyptian reliefs, partly fronting the 

 spectator, partly in profile. There is no attempt at 

 portraiture, not a suggestion of naturalism. But 

 in the treatment of animals the Assyrian allowed 

 himself complete freedom. The lion-hunts are 

 masterpieces of observation and execution. The 

 finest reliefs prove that even before the matchless 

 frieze of the Parthenon there were artists who 

 could model the horse with animation and under- 

 standing. The Assyrians delighted also in hybrid 

 forms ; the portals of their palaces were guarded 

 by colossal winged bulls with human heads, admir- 

 able specimens of which may lie seen at the British 

 Museum from the palace of Sargon (721-705 B.C.). 

 Assyrian art in fine, despite its many conventions 

 and inveterate symbolism, lacked the grandeur and 

 the nobility of Egyptian sculpture. On the other 

 hand, the artiste of Assyria display a sense of life 

 and movement, especially in their treatment of 

 animals, unknown before them (see figures at Vol. 

 I. pp. 517, 519, 633). 



The origins of Greek sculpture are still in dis- 

 pute. Some there are who would have us believe 

 that the art which culminated in Phidias derived 

 directly from Egypt or Assyria ; others assert that it 

 was autochthonous. The question does not admit 

 of a positive answer. That the archaic Greeks wen' 

 inlluenced by the art of the Orient is incontestable, 

 but it seems no less certain that, the influence being 

 superficial, Greek sculpture followed a natural 

 course of development. In the treasure-house at 

 Mycenae are certain scabbards and sword-hilts of 

 eastern design, if not of eastern workmanship, and 

 there is no reason why the Phoenicians, the bagmen 

 of antiquity, should not have carried these precious 

 wares to Argolis. The famous Lion-gate, too, is 

 Assyrian in character, and many examples of 

 primitive Greek art are conspicuously Oriental. 

 But both history and common sense are opposed 

 to the view that the early masters of Selimis or 

 the authors of the primitive Apollo statues (so 

 called) owed a direct debt to Egypt. It has been 

 pointed out that Egyptian art, when we first meet 

 it, was finished ami complete ; its ideal was attained 

 in ol>edience to hieratic laws. The sculptors of 

 archaic Greece were too naive to be the mere imi- 

 tators of a classical style. Their aim was realism, 

 so far as their limited resources and control of 

 marble or bronze would carry them. The early 

 history of Greek art is shrouded by the Greeks 

 themselves in a veil of legend. With charac- 

 teristic anthropomorphism the ancient critics were 

 wont to represent each epoch in the development 

 of art by a purely mythical hero. The Cyclopes, 

 the Telchines, Disdains, Butades, and Kore, to 

 whom the invention of modelling is ascrilied, are 

 one and all very pretty fictions. Even Rhoecus 

 and Theodorus, the inventors of bronze-casting, 

 and Glancus, who invented the soldering of 

 iron (ait-tipov K/>\\Ttam ), are names and no more. 

 Indeed it is impossible until a comparatively 

 late period to connect extant works with the 

 name of their authors. When we examine the 

 archaic monuments, such as the earliest metopes 

 of Selinus, which are as old perhaps as 600 B.C., 

 we find a style awkward and ingenuous even to 

 barbarity. While the figures of Perseus and 



Medusa front the spectator, the feet are planted 

 from left to right, and the mason, so far from 

 aiming at symmetry of design, was doubtless con- 

 tent with a vague semblance of humanity. The 

 seated figures from Branchidie, which may be as 

 late as 540 B.C., are merely blocked out, and the 

 seated Athena, ascribed to Endcens (550 B.C.), gives 

 no promise of the golden age which followed less 

 than a century later. The celebrated Lycian 

 reliefs, known as the Harpy Tomb, mark a dis- 

 tinct step in advance. There is charm and dignity 

 in their stiff elegance and beautiful drapery ; anil 

 yet are they not still marred by the clumsy in- 

 genuousness of the true primitive? At Athens 

 art was born late and lived a brief, if brilliant, 

 life. Nor is the stele of Aristocles much better 

 than an archaic experiment ; though the relief of 

 a woman stepping into a chariot, which may have 

 been a metope of the Hecatompedon, has at least the 

 suggestion of freedom and mastery. There exists 

 a group of statues called Apollo which were 

 fashioned in obedience to the same convention. 

 They are rigid and clumsy in handling; the arms 

 are fixed firmly to the side ; and yet the sur- 

 face is treated with breadth and simplicity, and 

 there is an unmistakable Hellenism in the flow 

 of the linos. That of Orchomenus is probably the 

 most ancient, and may date from the 7th century ; 

 the most advanced in style is the so-called Strang- 

 ford Apollo now in the British Museum which 

 is doubtless not much older than the Angina pedi- 

 ments. 



The marble statues which adorned the gable- 

 ends of the temple of Athena at vfcgina, and are 

 now the chief ornament of the Glyptothek at 

 Munich, form the first great monument of Greek 

 art which has come down to us. Each pediment 

 represented the struggle of two opposing forces 

 over a dead warrior. Though there is an archaic 

 touch in the spare proportions and rigid attitudes 

 of the figures, they are evidently the work of a 

 master wlio understood his craft, and it is possible 

 that the stern handling and the archaic smile were 

 deliberate. The author is unknown. The east- 

 ern pediment is freer, and possibly later than the 

 western, and the historians have ascribed it to 

 Onatas, a sculptor whose name is preserved in the 

 texts. But there is not a shred of definite evi- 

 dence, and we can only describe these fine statues 

 as the liest specimen of Greek sculpture half a 

 century liefore the advent of Phidias. The style of 

 Myron and Polyeletus is known to us only by 

 copies ; that of Kalamis not at all, unless the 

 Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo (so called) be a copy of 

 his famous Apollo Alexikakos. All three were 

 older contemporaries of Phidias, and concerning 

 them all the ancient critics waxed eloquent. If we 

 may believe a hundred epigrams, Myron aimed at 

 realism and illusion rather than at beauty. His 

 disc-thrower has been celebrated through all. the 

 ages, although, if the copy he accurate, Qtiintilian 

 described it accurately as distortum et elaboration. 

 Polycletns, on the other hand, was a true 

 academic, and would have imposed a canon on the 

 world. The well-known Doryphorits and Diadu- 

 menits are copies of his works ; and though we 

 may not determine therefrom his technique, we 

 may at least realise the square proportion to which 

 he bade his contemporaries conform. 



In Phidias the art of sculpture culminated. Born 

 at the most fortunate moment of the world's his- 

 tory, the artist of the Parthenon was a worthy 

 contemporary of Sophocles and Plato. To his 

 personal genius must be ascribed the marvellous 

 efflorescence of art which conferred a unique glory 

 upon the 5th century B.C. Cupidity and barbarism 

 have effaced the monumental Chryselephantine 

 (q.v.) figures of Atheua and Zeus, which antiquity 



