RELATIONS OF CLASSICAL ARCHAEOLOGY 595 



panion, epigraphy, has laid. With this science archaeology stands 

 throughout in the closest connection. 



In truth, as a good part of the material of the history of ancient 

 art is in literary form, consists, that is, in facts from ancient 

 writers and inscriptions, the archaeologist must be also philo 

 logian, or at least well schooled in philology. The methods of work 

 and the problems of modern philology must be his, too. He may no 

 more, as earlier, e\en still in H. Brunn's History of Artists, 

 make use of the various literary traditions without seeking their 

 source, without investigating whence the authority has his inform- 

 ation, what sort of a man he is anyway, what he could have known, 

 and what credibility is to be ascribed to him on the basis of his 

 personality. And the putting to use of the evidence from inscrip- 

 tions naturally requires complete familiarity with that branch of 

 philology which is commonly designated as epigraphy. 



Nevertheless archaeology is no longer, as could once be maintained, 

 a mere appendage and accessory of philology; it was that, so long as 

 its aim was in mere antiquarianism or simply in illustrating some 

 passages of ancient literature by means of fine art or in expounding 

 the objective content of examples of fine art through passages of liter- 

 ature. Many notable scholars of the nineteenth century, who have 

 attained a considerable name, like Otto Jahn, have yet in reality 

 scarcely emerged from this conception of archaeology. In opposition 

 to these, Heinrich Brunn, unquestionably the greatest archaeologist 

 of the epoch just passed, defended the independence of archaeology 

 on the basis of the special character of its subject-matter; yet in his 

 works he has not drawn the full practical conclusions from this view, 

 and he has not entirety freed himself from that tradition which the 

 antiquario-exegetical subordination of archaeology had created. 

 He, too, was interested in a Greek vase, for instance, only to the 

 point of finding whether it gave a picture which illustrated a poetical 

 passage; the vase itself he did not yet grasp as the real object of his 

 study, the vase as it is in itself, as an aesthetic whole, a work of 

 decorative art. That it was possible for Brunn so to misjudge the 

 whole aesthetic and historical significance of the Greek vase as ap- 

 pears in his theory of the late origin thereof, was only a consequence 

 of that very tradition. 



Archaeology must certainly, therefore, work in closest connection 

 with philology, and with as complete as possible a mastery of the 

 ancient literature and inscriptions; but it must also be fully conscious 

 of its own characteristic quality and independent position, and must 

 vindicate these last in aiming to understand the work of fine art as, 

 what it is in itself, and not merely to make use of it to elucidate 

 something else. 



A field of studv also which stands verv near to archaeolou'v is that 



