562* POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



The contempt felt by the Romans for every other occupation 

 than the military, and the consequent contempt for art and 

 artists imported from conquered peoples, resulted in the fact that 

 in the time of the Caesars sculptors and painters " were generally 

 either slaves or freedmen." Probably the only concern the 

 priests had with sculpture was when prescribing the mode in 

 which this or that god should be represented. 



Such records as have come down to us from early Christian 

 times illustrate the general law of evolution in the respect that 

 they show how little the arts of design were at first specialized. 

 It has been often remarked that in days comparatively modern, 

 separation of the various kinds of mental activity was much less 

 marked than it has since become : instance the fact that Leonardo 

 da Vinci was man of science as well as artist ; instance the fact 

 that Michael Angelo was at once poet, architect, sculptor and 

 painter. This union of functions seems to have been still more 

 the rule in preceding ages. Evidence about the sculptors' art is 

 mingled with evidence about kindred arts. Says Emeric- David 

 " The same masters were goldsmiths, architects, painters, sculp- 

 tors, and sometimes poets, as well as being abbots or even 

 bishops." We are told by Challamel that the industrial art by 

 pre-eminence was gold -working. The great artists in it were 

 monks or at least clerics. The great schools of it were mon- 

 asteries. And it was for the use of churches ecclesiastical vest- 

 ments and decorations, funeral monuments, etc. 



In the last part of this statement we see the implication that 

 the sculpturing of figures on monuments was a priestly occupa- 

 tion. This is also implied by the statement of Emeric- David that 

 in the 10th cent. Hugues, monk of Monstier-en-Der, was painter 

 and statuary. Further proof that miscellaneous art- works were 

 carried on by the clerical class is given by Lacroix and Sere*, who 

 say that early in the llth cent, a monk, named Odoram, executed 

 shrines and crucifixes in gold and silver and precious stones. In 

 the middle of the century another monk, Theophilus, was at once 

 painter of manuscripts, glass- stainer, and enameling goldsmith. 



Concerning these relationships in England during early days, 

 I find no evidence. The first relevant statements refer to times 

 in which the plastic arts, which no doubt were all along shared 

 in by those lay-assistants who did the rough work under clerical 

 direction such as chiseling out monuments in the rough accord- 

 ing to order had lapsed entirely into the hands of these lay- 

 assistants. Having been in the preceding times nothing but 

 skillful artisans, their work, when it came to be monopolized by 

 them, was for a long time regarded as artisan- work. Hence the 

 statement that 



