600 CLASSICAL ART 



of Christian times is founded on the antique, it can be understood 

 only by those who know the antique; no one who aims to work in 

 the modern history of art dare be ignorant of it; knowledge of it is 

 simply indispensable for him. And on the other hand, the archaeo- 

 logist will enlarge and illumine his view, and better understand and 

 appreciate the antique through comparison with the much more 

 completely and richly preserved works of modern art, if he has made 

 himself quite familiar with the modern art-development. 



A more intimate cooperation of antique and modern art-history 

 would in any case be of the greatest value to both sides. Their separ- 

 ation was for a long time favored by the fact that archaeology seemed 

 to be forgetting her chief function and to be going off into antiquarian 

 pedantry and mere exegesis of works of antique art, while the modern 

 history of art aimed from the first at tracing the development of 

 style in great art and penetrating into the personalities of the great 

 masters, an aim which was, indeed, incomparably easier on the 

 working basis of an abundance of well-preserved originals, than for 

 archaeology, which has at its disposal mostly only poor, and at that 

 mutilated, copies. This last difference had still another result: inas- 

 much as the material of the history of modern art is so much more 

 accessible and can be at once utilized by every one, there were not 

 wanting many unprepared intruders who, more than in other fields, 

 put forth amateurish work; and this helped in its turn to deepen the 

 cleft between the sister-sciences. 



The field which is now designated as modern art-history is, more- 

 over, a very wide one, and specialization is therefore already begin- 

 ning within it, which is, indeed, very necessary. So much the more, 

 however, must the mutual relations of the special groups, and in 

 particular the bond with archaeology, be watched and tended. The 

 modern science of art has for the most part followed much too 

 exclusively the development of style, and has too little sought to 

 exhaust the content of the work of art as a whole; it has had 

 hitherto too much to do even in getting the material once sifted 

 and classified according to style. Still, just in this direction it 

 has already accomplished a vast deal, and can serve as a model to 

 archaeology, which has long been backward in this respect, and is, 

 for instance, just at the point of admitting that its most immediate 

 need is to make the many scattered remains of antique sculpture 

 accessible through photographs. In this point the modern science 

 of art has gone to its goal much more quickly and directly; but in 

 complete and impartial treatment of the single fact it could yet 

 learn much from archaeology. 



On the boundary between archaeology and the history of modern 

 art stands the so-called Christian archaeology. Here, too, the actual 

 present division of subjects finds itself in contradiction to the logic 



