PROBLEMS IN HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE 617 



make the Agias our basis for determining the personal style of 

 Lysippus. 



What is certain, then, is that, in the Agias of Delphi we have a 

 marble statue contemporary with Lysippus, and the question recurs 

 whether, in view of its qualities and those of other works of the time 

 known to us in originals or in copies, we are forced to assign the 

 apoxyomenus to a post-Lysippean date. As in the case of Phidias 

 we faced the question, ho\v wide a range of variation is possible to 

 a single artist, so here we face the question, how wide a range of 

 variation is possible to different artists living at the same time and 

 under the same general conditions. For my own part, I am disposed 

 to think that there is no fatal objection to believing that Lysippus, 

 whom 1 regard as belonging to a younger generation than Praxiteles, 

 was himself the creator of those innovations which mark the apoxy- 

 omenus off from the Agias. And I am confirmed in this opinion when 

 it is pointed out to me how far Leonardo da Vinci was in advance of 

 Lorenzo di Credi, who was actually by seven years Leonardo's 

 junior. 



Finally, some one may ask, "Is all this painful balancing of 

 probabilities worth while? Why pursue this difficult path toward 

 a dubious end? Why not take each remnant of classic art for just 

 what it is in itself, enjoying it according to its merits, and not tor- 

 menting ourselves with trying to establish its relations to other 

 existent or non-existent things?" Perhaps these questions take us 

 beyond the proper bounds of the subject prescribed for this address. 

 Nevertheless, I beg leave to say in answer that I have a good deal 

 of sympathy with the point of view which prompts such questions. 

 For the great multitude of cultivated people the important thing 

 is to know and appreciate works of art, rather than to understand 

 their history. A knowledge of the history of Greek sculpture is no 

 more 1 necessary to an enjoyment of the Flgin marbles than a know- 

 ledge 1 of the history of music is necessary to an enjoyment of a 

 symphony by Beethoven. There is reason to fear that in academic 

 teaching the historical side of the study of art is disproportionately 

 emphasized. But that detailed and comparative scrutiny upon 

 which a knowledge of the history of art rests ought not to slide the 

 power of enjoyment. Rather it ought to make enjoyment richer and 

 deeper. Moreover the intellect has its rights, as well as the a'sthetic 

 faculty. It is a legitimate, yes. with some an imperative, desire to 

 know what can be known of the 1 conditions, material and spiritual, 

 that gave birth to immortal works of art. But let us not forget that 

 what gives dignity to this study is the power of the work of art to 

 stir the emotions, to divert, console, inspire. If we forget that, our 

 studv is ban-en of its chief regard. 



