Skip to main content

Full text of "A history of sculpture"

See other formats


ajorncll lUnioeraitg iCtbrarg 

atliata, •New ^ork 






Cornell University Library 
NB 60.F78 

A history of sculpture, 

3 1924 020 711 044 

Cornell University 

The original of tliis book is in 
tlie Cornell University Library. 

There are no known copyright restrictions in 
the United States on the use of the text. 







MACMILLAN & CO., Limited 




The History of American Painting 


A New and Revised Edition. Cloth, 8vo, $6.00 

This work traces the growth of American Painting 
from its first transplanting from Europe to the absorption, 
after the Civil War, of American development back into 
the general art history of the world. 

A history of American painting is of importance chiefly 
as a record of the growth of the country in inteUigence 
and taste. From this viewpoint the author has treated his 
broad field comprehensively. The book deals with schools 
of painting, the art organizations of the country, and the 
general social atmosphere of the times, setting the lives 
and works of particular painters against the background 
of contemporary life. The earlier period dealing with 
events more remote from us is treated with a fulness of 
picturesque detail which renders particularly vivid the 
works of the pioneers. 

In our own day the author has indicated the tendencies 
of development by mention of the individual painters who 
exemplify the general trend. An entire chapter is devoted 
to men like Whistler and La Farge whose influence it is 
manifestly important for the reader to understand. 

The book is unusually illustrated with numerous photo- 
gravures and full-page illustrations. 

" Nothing up to the time of its publication has been of 
greater value . . . worthy of a place in every library." — 


Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York 

The History of American ibculpture 


Member of the National Sculpture Society, etc. 

New edition, with many illustrations 
Decorated cloth, 8vo, $6.00 

Of this work, which has been out of print for some 
Httle time, the art editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer 
writes : " For the fulness of its history, the soundness 
of its judgments, and the profuseness and excellence of 
its illustrations, Lorado Taft's ' History of American 
Sculpture ' is a volume to be prized by all who are in 
any way interested in American Art." 

The History of American Music 


New edition, illustrated . Cloth, 8vo, $6.00 

This has been the standard work on American musical 
history ever since its first issue in 1904. In the present 
new edition it is brought completely up to date. All the 
important and interesting occurrences of the past ten 
years are adequately treated, and the scope of the work 
is expanded to embrace every musical activity of the 
American people. 


Publishers 64-66 Fifth Avenue New York 

(Brumi-Briiekmanii, Tleiikindler,-p\. 4W;.) 





NeSd gotk 



All rights reserved 


Bt the macmillan company. 

Set up and electrotyped. Published May, igi6. 

Nortoaati ^rees 

J. 8. Cushing Co. — Berwick & Smith Co 
Norwood, Mass., U.S.A. 

A ^ Y 

In the torch race at Athens the burning torch was carried 
by one runner after another, each keeping the blaze alive and 
passing it undimnied to his successor. So for more than 
twenty years, as you have successively run through your col- 
lege course, you have handed on and kept alive the tradition 
of friendship for me. That friendship has lightened for me 
the gloom of sorrow and discouragement and has lent added 
brightness and warmth to my days of happiness. It is with 
heartfelt gratitude and affection that I dedicate this book 
to you. 


In this book I have attempted to give a sketch of the 
history of sculpture from the beginnings of civilization in 
Egypt and Babylonia to the present day. The sculpture 
of the Far East is treated very briefly and, as 1 am per- 
fectly conscious, insufficiently, because it has not affected 
the development of our own art, but has led a separate 
existence, in spite of the influence exerted upon it by 
Greek sculpture. For similar reasons, and also on account 
of its lack of intrinsic merit, the sculpture of the Ameri- 
can aborigines, of the negro races, the tribes of Oceania, 
and other backward peoples has been altogether omitted. 
With these limitations, I have tried to include an account 
of all the important developments in the art of sculpture 
in ancient, mediaeval, and modern times, with such de- 
scriptions of individual works and information concerning 
individual artists as the space at my disposal and the 
available information permit. Since the book is a history, 
not a series of essays, I have attempted no detailed criti- 
cism. A brief description of the materials and methods 
employed in sculpture is contained in the Introduction. 

It has not been my purpose to compile a dictionary of 
sculptors, but I have included in the book a considerable 
number of names, believing that the usefulness of the book 
would be thereby increased, though I am quite aware that 
some of the names I have omitted, especially in the chap- 
ters on modern sculpture, may be no less important than 
some of those that I have mentioned. A choice had to 
be made, and I have chosen as best I coukl. 

Since this is a handbook, intended for the use of the 
general public and of young students, not a work of re- 
search for the enlightenment of scholars, I have not given 
references to my authorities for statements of fact or 


expressions of opinion, except in a few cases, and then 
for especial reasons. I liave seen most of the works of 
sculpture described or discussed in the book, but my 
opinions concerning them do not, as a rule, disagree with 
those of previous writers, and I have made no attempt to 
hide my indebtedness to my predecessors. Of the many 
books consulted, the titles of which are included in the 
Bibliography, I am most indebted to the great Uistoire 
de VArt of M. Michel and his collaborators. 

I wish to express my thanks to the American Book 
Company for permission to use material already employed 
in an earlier book (Fowler and Wheeler, A Handbook of 
Greek Archaeology, American Book Company, 1909), to 
the directors and curators of the Metropolitan Museum 
of Art in New York and the Museum of Fine Arts in 
Boston for permission to publish photographs of works of 
sculpture in the lich collections under their charge, and 
to the kind friends who have assisted me by the loan or 
the gift of photographs. I am heartily grateful to The 
Macmillan Company for the patience with which my delay 
has been endured and the cordial liberality with which 
my wishes concerning illustrations and other matters have 
been consulted. 


Western Resehve IIniveksity, 

Ceevei.ani), Ohio, 
March 31, lOKi. 


Introduction. Materials and Methods of Sculpture 


I. Egyptian Sculpture 

II. Babylonian and Assyrian Sculpture . 

III. Hittite, Persian, Phoenician, and Cypriote 

Sculpture . . . . 

IV. Greek Sculpture. The Prehellenic and Archai 


V. Greek Sculpture. The Fifth Century 

VI. Greek Sculpture. The Fourth Century . 

VII. Greek Sculpture. The Hellenistic Period 

VIII. Etruscan Sculpture . 

IX. Roman Sculpture 

X. Byzantine Sculpture 

XL Mediaeval Sculpture. Italy 

XII. Mediaeval Sculpture in France 

XIII. Mediaeval Sculpture in Germany 

XIV. Mediaeval Sculpture in England 
XV. Mediaeval Sculpture in Spain 

XVI. Sculpture of the Renaissance in Italy. 
Early Renaissance .... 
XVII. Sculpture of the Renal'^sance in Italy. 
Developed and the Late Renaissance. 

Baroque . 

XVIII. Sculpture of the Renaissance in France . 
XIX. Sculpture of the Renaissance in Germany 
XX. Sculpture of the Renaissance in the Nether 
lands and in England .... 
















XXII. Modern Sctlpture in Italy, Denmark, Nor- 
way, AND Sweden 346 

XXIII. Modern Sculpture in France and Belgium . 3.53 

XXIV. Modern Sculpture in Germany, Spain, and 

Russia 368 

XXV. ]\Iodern Sculpture in Great Britain . . 378 

XXVI. Sculpture in the United States . . . 388 

XXVII. Sculpture in the Far East — India, China, and 

Japan 407 

Bibliography 419 


The Hermes of Praxiteles (Brunn-Bruckmann, Denkmdler, 466) 



1. Palette of King Narmer (Borchardt, KunstiveHe cms dem 

Aegyptiscken Museum zu Cairo, PI. lii) .... 3 

2. Sheik el Beled. Cairo 5 

3. Statue of Scribe. The Louvre, Paris 6 

4. The Dwarf, Knemuhetep. Cairo 7 

5. Upper Part of Diorite Statue of King Khaf ra ( Chephren) . Cairo 7 

6. Mycerinus and his Queen. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts . 8 

7. Wooden Panel from the Tomb of Hesy-re. Cairo . . .11 

8. Relief from the Tomb of Sabu. Cairo. (Borchardt, K%aist- 

werke aus dem Aegyptiscken Museum zu Cairo, PI. 22.) . 12 

9. Upper Part of the Statue of King Araeneiiihet III. Cairo. 

(Borchardt, Kunstwerke aus dem Aegyptiscken Museum zu 

Cairo, PI. 6.) 15 

10. Relief from the Tomb of Menthu-weser. Metropolitan Museum, 

New York 16 

11. Facade of Great Rock-hewn Temple at Abu Simbel ... 18 

12. The Goddess Mut. Cairo. (Borchardt, Kunstwerke atis dem 

Aegyptiscken Museum zu Cairo, PI. 13, ) . . . . 19 

13. Reliefs in the Temple of Seti I at Abydos 20 

14. Upper Part of Statuette of Queen Karomama. The Louvre, 

Paris 21 

15. Fragments of the " Vulture Stele. " The Louvre, Paris. (De 

Saizec, Decouvertes en Chaldee, ¥1. S '>^'.) .... 25 

16. Statue from Bismya. Constantinople 26 

17. Stele of Naram-Sin. The Louvre, Paris 27 

18. Statue of Gudea, from Lagash. The Louvre, Paris ... 28 

19. Tablet of Nabu-aplu-iddin. British Museum .... 30 

20. Asshurnazirpal and a Eunuch. British Museum ... 33 

21. Asshurnazii-pal Hunting. British Museum .... 34 

22. Relief from the Palace of Sargon II. The Louvre, Paris . . 36 

23. Weight in the Form of a Bronze Lion. The Louvre, Paris . 37 

24. Wounded Lioness. British Museum 38 



25. Asshurbanipal Drinking in a Garden. " British Museum . . 39 

26. Inscribed Hittite Lion, from Marash. Constantinople . . 42 

27. Archers. Persian Relief of Glazed Tile. The Louvre, Paris . 45 

28. Persian Bull-Capital. The Louvre, Paris 46 

29. Cypriote Sarcophagus ; about 550-500 B.C. Metropolitan Mu- 

seum, New York 50 

30. Cypriote Statue ; about 500 b.c. Metropolitan Museum, New 

York 51 

31. Fragment of Stucco Kelief. Museum at Candia. (Anmtal of 

the British School at Athens, Yl\, \>. n .) .... 64 

32. Harvest Vase. Museum at Candia. (Maraghianis, Antiquites 

cretoises, I, pi. xxii.) ........ 55 

.33. Lions of Mycenae. (Brunn-Bruckmann, Denknidler, PI. 151) . 55 

34. Gold Cups from Vaphio. National Museum, Athens . . 66 

35. Statuette of Gold and Ivory. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston . 57 
30. Apollo of Tenea. Munich. (Biiinn-Bruckmann, 1.) . . 60 

37. Seated Figure from Branchidae. British Museum. (Brnnn- 

Bruckmann, 142.) ......... 62 

38. Draped Figure of the Chian School. Acropolis Museum, Athens. 

(Brunn-Bruckniaun, 458.) ....... 64 

39. Pediment Group from the Treasury of the Siphnians. Delphi . 65 

40. Figures from an Archaic Temple. Coroyra (Corfu) ... 66 

41. Bronze Statuette from Piombino. The Louvre, Paris. (Brunn- 

Bruckmann, 78.) 68 

42. Relief from the Treasury of the Sicyonians. Delphi . . 69 

43. Fallen Warrior from Aegina. Mimich. (Brunn-Bruckmann, 28.) 71 

44. So-called Typhon. Acropolis Museum, Athens. (Brunn- 

Bruckmann, 456a.) 72 

45. Moschophorus. Acropolis Museum, Athens. (Brunn-Bruck- 

mann, 6, Ersatz.) ....... 73 

46. Figures from Temple of Athena. Acropolis Museum, Athens. 

(Brunn-Bruckmann, 471.) ....... 74 

47. Figure dedicated by Euthydicus. Acropolis Museum, Athens. 

(Brunn-Bruckmann, 459.) ....... 75 

48. Harmodius and Aristogeiton. Naples . .■ . . .77 

49. Choiseul-GoufBer " Apollo.'' British Museum . ... 78 

50. Bronze Charioteer. Delphi ....... 80 

51. Metope from the Temple of Zeus. Olympia. (Brunn-Bruck- 

mann, 442.) 81 

52. Pediments of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia ; Treu's Restora- 

tion. (Luckenbach, Olympia vnd Delphi, ]i. 'iS.) . . 82 



53. Victory by Paeonius. Olympia. (Brunn-Bruckmann, 444.) 

54. Discobolus by Myron, as reconstructed in tiie National Museum 

Rome .......... 

55. Athene and Marsyas, as restored in the Archaeological Museum 


50. The Varvakeion Athena. National Museum, Athens 

57. Bronze Head of Zeus. Vienna. (JahresheftP d. Oesterr. 

Archaeol. Institutes, XIV, pi. ii.) .... 

58. The Doryphorus of I'olyclitus. Naples. (Brunn-Bruckmann, 

27.S, Ersatz.) 

59. So-called Hera. National Museum, Athens. (Wald.stein, Ex 

cavations . . . at the. Heraion of An/os, 1S93, pi. v.) 
(10. Metope of the Parthenon. British Museum. (Brunn-Bruck- 
mann, 184.) ......... 

01. From the Eastern Frieze of the Parthenon. Acropolis Museum 
Athens. (Brunn-Bruckmann, 194.) .... 

62. So-called Theseus, from the Parthenon. British Museum 

63. So-called Fates, from the Parthenon. British Museum 

(Brunn-Bruckmann, 190.) ...... 

64. Eastern Pediment of the Parthenon, as reconstructed by Karl 

Sohwerzek, Vienna ....... 

65. Fragment of the Balustrade of the Temple of Athena Nike 

Acropolis Museum, Athens ...... 

66. Caryatid from the Erechtheum. British Museum 

67. So-called Mourning Athena. Athens .... 
08. Heads from Tegea. National Museum, Athens. {Antike 

Denkmdler, I, pi. 35 ; from casts.) .... 

69. Cnidian Aphrodite, after Praxiteles. The "^'atioan. (Brunn- 

Bruckmann, 371 ; from a cast.) ..... 

70. Satyr after Praxiteles. Capitoline Museum, Rome. (Brunn- 

Bruckmann, 377.) 

71. Apoxyomenos. The Vatican. (Brunn-Bruckmann, 281. ) 

72. Statue of Agias. Delphi. (Bnlletin ile Corr. Hellen. XXXIII 

Pl- xi.) ■ 

73. From the Frieze of the Mausoleum. British Museum 

74. Sarcophagus of the Mourners. Constantinople ... 

75. Monument of Hegeso. Athens. (Brunn-Bruckmann, 436.) 

76. Alexander Sarcophagus. Constantinople .... 

77. Demosthenes. The Vatican 

78. Nike from Samothraoe. The Louvre, Paris.' (Brunn-Bruck 

mann, 85, Ersatz.) . 



T'.l. Aphrodite from Melos. The Louvre, Paris 

80. " Athena Group " from the Great Altar at Pergamon. Berlin. 

(Brunn-Bruckmann, 484.) ..... 

81. The Laocoiin. The Vatican. (Brunn-Bruckmann, 230.) 

82. "Venus Genetrix." The Louvre, Paris. (Brunn-Bruck- 

mann, 473.) ........ 

83. Sarcophagus from Sidamara. Constantinople . 

84. Sarcophagus uf Seianti Thanunia. British Museum. (Antike 

Denkmiih-r, I, pi. 20.) 

85. Tlie " Arringatore." Florence. (Brunn-Bruckmann, 320. ) 
80. Belief from the Altar of Peace. Lftizi Gallery, Florence 

87. Decorative Scrollwork from the Altar of Peace. Uftizi Gallery, 

Florence ......... 

88. Augustus, from Prima Porta. The Vatican 
80. Panel of the Arch of Titus, Rome 

90. Rehef on the Column of Trajan. (Brunn-Bruckmann, 400 ; 

from casts.) ........ 

91. Bust of Antinous. The Louvre, Paris .... 

92. Relief from the Base of the Colunni of Antoninus Pius. The 

Vatican. (Brunn-Bruckmann, 210.) 

93. Achilles and Peuthesilea ; Roman Sarcophagus. The Vatican 

94. Colossal Bronze Statue at Barletta ..... 

9.5. Sarcopliagus in Ravenna ....... 

90. Ivory Reliefs from the " Throne uf Maxiniian." Ravenna 

97. Panels of Bronze Door, Ravello ..... 

98. Group of Colunnis. Monreale ...... 

99. Pulpit in the Baptistery at Pisa ; by Nicola Pisano . 

100. Puljiit by Giovanni Pisano ; formerly in tlie Cathedral at Pisa 

101. Tomb of Cardinal de Braye. Orvieto .... 

102. Panels of the Bronze Door, by Andrea Pisano. (The Frieze 

is by Vittorio Ghiberti, Son of Lorenzo.) . 

103. The Creation and the Fall. Orvieto .... 

104. Tomb of Can Signorio. Verona ..... 

105. Decoration of the Porta della Mandorla. Florence . 

106. Capital from Clermont-Ferrand ..... 

107. Relief from St. ifctienne. Toulouse .... 

108. Tympanum at V^zelay (from the cast in the Trocadero, Paris) 

109. Part of the Facade of St. Trophime, Aries (from the cast in 

the Trocadero, Paris) ....... 202 

110 Statues of the Western Facade of Chartres .... ^;05 

111. Statues of the Southern Porch of Chartres .... ^00 


112. Statues of the Western Fagade of Eheims . . . .207 

113. Tympanum of the Southern Transept of Notre Dame, Paris; 

Door of St. Stephen ; Second Halt of Thirteenth Century 

(from the cast in the Trocad(5ro) 208 

114. Southern Side Door, Amiens (the Vierge dor^e on tlie middle 

support) 211 

115. The Puits de Moise, Dijon (from the cast in the Trooadero, 

Paris) 21.3 

116. Mourners on the Tomb of John the Tearless, Dijon (from casts 

in the Trooad^ro, Paris) 214 

117. Tympanum of the " Goldene Pforte," Freiberg. (Photo. 

Dr. F. Stoedtner, Berlin, NW.) 219 

118. Tympanum from the " Georgenchor," Bamberg . . . 220 

119. The Synagogue, Strassburg Cathedral. (Photo. Dr. F. Stoedt- 

ner, Berlin, NW.) 222 

120. Tempter and Tempted ; Foolish Virgins ; Strassburg Cathedral. 

(Photo. Dr. F. Stoedtner, Beriin, NW.) . . . ,223 

121. Tympanum of the Frauenkirche, Nuremberg (from a oast) . 225 

122. Portal of Rochester Cathedral. (Photo. Mansell.) . . . 228 

123. Part of Facade of Exeter Cathedral. (Photo. Mansell.) . 231 

124. Tomb of Cardinal Langham, Westminster Abbey. (Photo. 

Mansell.) 235 

125. Part of the Chapel of Henry VII, Westminster Abbey. (Photo. 

Mansell.) 230 

126. English Alabaster Relief. Metropolitan Museum, New York 239 

127. Santiago de Compostela, South Portal ; Figures from the 

destroyed North Portal ....... 242 

128. Santiago de Compostela ; the Gloria 243 

129. Tympanum of S. Maria la Real, Sangiiesa .... 245 

130. Sarcophagus of Queen Berenguela. Burgos .... 246 

131. Cathedral of Burgos ; Puerta del Sarmental .... 247 

132. Cathedral of Leon ; Statues of Western Portal . . .248 

133. Alabaster Eetablo in the Style of Vallfngona. Metropolitan 

Museum, New York ........ 255 

134. Four Panels of Ghiberti's Earlier Door. Florence . . . 259 

135. The Porta del Paradiso, by Ghiberti. Florence . . . 261 

136. " II Zuccone," by Donatello. Florence 262 

137. Choir Loft, by Donatello. Florence 263 

138. Cupid in Trousers, Donatello. Florence . . . . . 264 

139. Gattamelata, by Donatello. Padua 265 

140. Panel of Choir Loft, by Luca della Robbia . . . .266 



141. A Terra-cotta Altarpiece, by Luca della Robbia. Pesoia . 267 

142. Assumption of the Virgin, by Nanni di Banco. Florence . 269 

143. Angelic Musicians, by Agostino di Duccio. Perugia . . 270 

144. Tomb of Count Ugo, Marchese di Tosoana, by Mino da Fiesole. 

Florence 272 

145. CoUeoni, by Verrocchio. Venice 274 

146. Portal of San Petronio, Bologna, by Jacopo della Querela . 276 

147. The Lamentation, by Mazzoni. Modena .... 279 

148. The Judgment of Solomon. Doge's Palace, Venice . . 282 

149. Tomb of Niccol6 Tron. Venice 28.3 

150. Pietk, by Michael Angelo. Rome 290 

161. David, by Michael Angelo. Florence ..... 291 

152. Moses, by Michael Angelo. Rome 292 

15.3. Tomb of Giuliauo del Medici, by Michael Angelo. Florence . 293 

154. The Rape of the Sabines, by Giovanni Bologna. Florence . 297 

155. Apollo and Daphne, by Bernini. Home 299 

156. St. George and the Dragon, by Michel Colombe. The Louvre, 

Paris . . ■ 303 

157. Death and Funeral of the Virgin ; Choir Screen, Cathedi-al of 

Chartres . 306 

158. The Entombment, by Ligier Richier. Saint^Mihiel . . 307 

159. Nymphe, by Jean Goujon. Fountain of the Innocents, Paris . 308 

160. Tomb of Henry II and Catherine des Medicis, by Germain 

Pilon, St. Denis- 309 

161. Nymphs Bathing, by Girardon, Versailles .... 310 

162. Marie Leczinska, by Guillaunie Coustou. The Louvre, Paris 312 

163. The Fifth Station of the Cross, by Adam Kraft. Nuremberg. 

(Photo. Dr. F. Stoedtner, Berlin, NW.) . . . .318 

164. Bronze Statue of King Arthur, by Peter Vischer. Innsbruck 319 

165. The Creglingen Altarpiece, by Tilman Rieniensohneider. 

(Photo. Dr. F. Stoedtner, Berlin, NW.) .... .320 

166. A Workman, by Jorg Syrlin the Elder, Munich . . .321 

167. St. Matthew. Blutenburg 323 

168. The Great Elector, by Schlilter. Berlin 325 

169. Choir screen at Tournai, by Cornells de Vriendt . . . 330 

170. The Tomb of Sir Francis Vere, by Stone. Westminster Abbey 333 

171. Portal of the Hospital of Santa Cruz, Toledo .... 337 

172. Tomb of Juan II and Isabella of Portugal. Miraflores, near 

Burgos 33g 

173. The Crucifixion. Part of an Altarpiece, by Felipe de Borgofia. 

Burgos 341 



174. Altarpieoe by Felipe de Borgona. Granada .... 342 

175. Head of St. John the Baptist, by Alonso Cano. Granada . 344 

176. Cupid and Psyche, by Canova. The Louvre, Paris . . 847 
' 177 . Venus, by Thorvaldsen. Copenhagen 351 

178. Jeanne d'Arc, by Rude. The Louvre, Paris .... 864 

179. A Florentine Singer, by Dubois. The Luxembourg, Paris . 357 

180. The Republic, by Dalou. Paris 359 

181. Monument to the Dead, by Bartholom^. Paris . . . 861 

182. The Thinker, by Rodin 363 

183. The Stevedore, by Meunier. The Luxembourg, Paris . . 366 

184. Von Ziethen, by Sohadow. Berlin 369 

185. The Rhine and the Moselle. From the Germania-Denkmal, 

by Schilling. Rildesheim 371 

186. Mounted Amazon, by Tuaillon. Berlin 374 

187. Pandora, by Bates. Tate Gallery, London . . . .382 

188. The Sluggard, by Leighton. Tate Gallery, London . . 384 

189. Peter Pan ; bronze by Frampton. Kensington Gardens, Lon- 

don 38£ 

190. Abraham Lincoln, by St. Gaudens. Chicago .... 39S 

191. The Mourning Victory, by French. Melvin Memorial, Con- 

cord, Mass. (Photo. A. W. Elson & Co., Boston.) . . . 397 

192. The End of the Trail, by Fraser. Exhibited at the Panama 

Exposition . . . ' 401 

193. Appeal to the Great Spirit, by Dallin. Boston . . . 40S 

194. Kuan Yin. Chinese ; Late Sixth or Early Seventh Century ; 

Stone ; above Life Size. Museum of Fine Arts, Boston . 414 

195. Seishi paying Reverence to a Soul newly arrived in Paradise. 

Wooden Statuette. Kamakflra Period. Museum of Fine 

Ai-ts, Boston 417 


Definitions. — Sculpture may be defined as the art of 
representation in solid material and in three dimensions. 
This definition is very general and for the purpose of this 
book needs some limitation. That which is represented 
may be a human figure, a group of figures, any natural ob- 
ject, an idea of the sculptor, a mere pattern, or even, in an 
extreme case, a plain surface. The size of the work may be 
colossal or it may be almost infinitesimal. In general par- 
lance, and in this book, the works of gem cutters, cameo 
cutters, seal engravers, goldsmiths, and silversmiths are 
not included under the designation of sculpture. They 
really are sculpture, but their small size demands peculiar 
technical processes and a treatment in many respects quite 
unlike that which is fitting for larger works. So, too, archi- 
tectural mouldings, linear patterns, finials, the channels 
cut in columns, and the like, although they may be regarded 
as forms of sculpture, are generally excluded. In this book 
only those branches of sculpture will be considered which 
represent the forms of human beings or animals, real or 
imaginary, or (in special cases) of plants. As a rule we shall 
consider only figure sculpture. 

Works of sculpture so made that they can be approached 
or seen from all sides are said to be carved or modelled 
in the round, but if the figures or designs are not separated 
from their background, they are said to be in relief. Low 
relief (bos relief, basso rilievo) projects but slightly from the 
background, middle relief (demi relief, mezzo rilievo) some- 
what more, and high relief {Jiaiit relief, alto rilievo) still more. 
If a relief projects less than half the natural thickness of the 


beings or objects represented, it is usually called low relief, 
and if more than half the natural thickness, high relief. 

Sculpture which forms part of a larger whole, such as 
a building, and which depends in any great measure upon 
its relation to that whole for its effect, is called decorative 
sculpture.^ The term " substantive sculpture " has been pro- 
posed for sculpture which is complete in itself. 

Materials — Work in Clay. — The materials most fre- 
quently used in sculpture are wood, clay, stone, and metal. 
These have been used in all ages, though not with equal 
frequency at different times and in different places. The 
methods employed have changed with the progress of 
civilization. Perhaps the most universally used material 
is clay. This is moistened to a proper degree of softness, 
then moulded with the hands into the desired shape. The 
marks of the fingers may then be removed, and the surface 
made smooth, with a damp cloth, a piece of leather, or a 
smooth piece of wood. If the work is to be permanent, it is 
then allowed to dry and is baked or fired in an oven. The 
result is a work in terra-cotta. If the work is large, the clay 
is likely to crack in the firing, unless the image (or whatever 
the object is) has been made hollow. Usually, therefore, 
terra-cotta figures are not modelled solid and then fired, but 
the original figure is used as a matrix and a mould is made 
from it. The mould is then fired, and figures are made by 
pressing the soft clay into the terra-cotta mould, which is in 
several pieces, and thus the figure as finally put in the oven 
is made of a number of thin pieces of clay carefully joined 
together. The details of the process have varied at different 

In modern times, in the period of the Renaissance, and in 
ancient Greece and Rome after the fourth century B.C. (or 
about that time), a clay model has been made before a work 
of sculpture has been executed in stone of any kind, in 

■ Sometimes the term "decorative sculpture" is used as the equivalent 
of "ornament," to designate ornamental designs which do not include 
figures of human beings or the like. It is better, however, to use the word 
"ornament" or to say "pure decoration" or "purely decorative work" or 
something of the kind. 


metal, or even, as a general thing, in wood. The clay model 
is then transferred to the other material. The processes 
by which this is done will be very briefly sketched below. 

Work in Wood. — Sculpture in wood (any close-grained 
wood may be used) is executed with saws, knives, drills, 
and chisels of various shapes. The development of the 
tools has accompanied the progress of the art. The begin- 
nings of the process of making a work of sculpture in wood, 
and the method of transferring the clay model, when such 
a model is used, into wood are virtually the same as the corre- 
sponding steps in the execution of a stone work and need not 
be separately described. 

Kinds of Stone — Egypt. — The kind of stone available at 
different times and places has had no little effect upon 
sculpture. The Egyptians had at their disposal excellent 
limestone, fine-grained and not too hard, which is, however, 
not very strong. The result was the early development 
of really fine carving, but, since the stone was not strong, 
the statues were often not cut free from the block of which 
they formed a part. Possibly, too, the clumsy ankles of 
many Egyptian statues may be due to the weakness of the 
stone and the sculptor's fear lest he ruin his work by trying 
to make the ankles slender. The Egyptian liking for very 
low relief may also be due in part to the quality of the lime- 
stone. For especially ostentatious works the Egyptians 
employed granite and basalt, hard stones which must have 
been very difficult to work with the imperfect tools of the 
early periods. The sculpture in these materials is finished 
with exquisite care ; the smooth surfaces are highly polished ; 
but there is an evident avoidance of deep grooves or cuttings. 
This may well be, in part at least, because deep cuttings 
were very difficult to make. 

Kinds of Stone — Babylonia, Assyria, Greece — Imple- 
ments used. — In Babylonia there was virtually no stone 
except what was imported. Nevertheless there was a good 
deal of sculpture in stone. If basalt or some other hard 
stone was used, the Babylonian sculptor polished his work 
and avoided deep cuttings, and if the stone was less refrac- 


tory the tendency was toward deeper cuttings in statues 
and liigher relief. In Assyria tlie alabaster employed was 
sometimes too soft ; so in the reliefs of Sargon's palace at 
Khorsabad the carving is not delicate and finely finished, 
but the edges look as if cut with a knife, not carved with 
mallet and chisel. The stone used by the Hittites is usually 
coarse-grained, and this fact may have something to do 
with the inferiority of their sculpture. In Greece various 
kinds of stone were used in early times, but by the middle of 
the sixth century B.C. marble was almost exclusively em- 
ployed. The so-called "poros" stone used for the earliest 
sculptures at Athens is soft and not ^ery fine. It can be 
cut with a knife, and apparently the method of carving it 
did not differ greatly from that used in carving wood. The 
tools were knives, a saw, and chisels, the latter being both 
flat and curved (gouges) . These tools were sometimes merely 
pushed with the hand, sometimes struck with a mallet. 
When marble was used, the tools were a pointed hammer, or 
a pointed instrument to be struck with a mallet, a gouge or 
curved chisel, a claw chisel, and files and sand for polishing. 
In the fifth century B.C. drills were introduced and from 
that time they were much used, especially in representing 
hair and the folds of drapery. The shapes of some of the 
tools have been changed, but in general the implements used 
are much the same to-day as in antiquity. Now, however, 
machinery is freely employed. 

Stone Sculpture — Early Methods. — The early sculptors 
in Greece, as in Egj^pt and the Asiatic countries, employed 
simple methods and did not mould clay models to be trans- 
ferred to stone. If a relief w^as to be made, the artist drew 
the outlines on the front of a slab of stone and then cut 
away the superfluous material, so that the figures remained 
standing forth from the background. Naturally no figure 
could project farther than the original surface of the slab, 
but the background could be cut away to any depth less 
than the thickness of the stone. The extreme outer por- 
tions of the figures therefore tend to be in one plane (the 
original surface), whereas the background may be in several 


planes. In modern times the sculptor makes his clay model 
on a flat slab ; his background therefore tends to be flat, 
and there is less likelihood that the extreme projections will 
be in one plane. Reliefs in early times were always colored, 
and the carving was often little more than a means of accen- 
tuating the outlines and suggesting the shadows of the 
painting; Egyptian, Assyrian, and early Greek reliefs are, 
probably for this reason, generally in low relief. 

Stone Sculpture — Early and Later Methods. — The sculp- 
tor of a statue in the round employed similar simple methods. 
Taking a block of quadrangular section, he drew on the 
front the outline of the figure desired, as seen from the 
front, and on the sides the outline of the side view of the 
figure. Then he cut away the stone not included in these 
outlines, working straight in until the cutting from front to 
back intersected that from side to side. He then had a 
rough, angular statue, which he could finish by rounding off 
the corners and working out details according to his ability. 
The practice of using clay models and transferring them to 
stone was, apparently, not introduced in Greece until the 
fifth century B.C., and probably did not become general 
until much later. It may have been employed in Egypt 
somewhat, but not much, earlier than in Greece. In the 
Middle Ages the stone used for sculpture was usually, 
except in Italy where marble was employed, the local 
building stone. The methods were simple, like those of the 
Egyptians and the early Greeks. Obviously such methods 
leave far more responsibility for the success of a large work 
in the hands of the stone-cutter (and correspondingly less 
in those of the designer) than the method by which the 
stone-cutter makes a mechanical copy of the designer's 
full-sized models. In modern times ^ the sculptor makes a 
clay model from which he makes a plaster cast. The im- 
portant projections and depressions are marked in this cast 

1 The modern methods, both for marble and bronze work, are treated 
in detail by Albert Toft, Modelling and Sculpture, 1911. A briefer aocount 
of them is given in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, s.v. "Sculpture" and 
" Metal-working." 


by metal pins, called points, and an ingenious device called 
the pointing machine makes it possible to mark the corre- 
sponding points in the block of marble. The marble is 
then cut away to all the points marked. The number of 
such points may be very great, in which case the statue is 
nearly finished when all the points are reached. In fact, 
many sculptors of modern times are merely modellers. 
They send their models to the stone-cutter, who, with the 
help of the pointing machine and other contrivances, makes 
an accurate copy. The more careful sculptors add the 
finishing touches themselves, but very few do any great 
amount of chiselling. 

Sculpture in Bronze. — The metal chiefly employed in 
sculpture is bronze, a composition of copper and tin.^ Other 
metals are used occasionally, but they are either too expen- 
sive, or not strong enough in proportion to their weight, 
or not adapted to fine work. Even in very early times 
bronze statuettes and small reliefs were made, but the 
statuettes were cast solid and the reliefs were beaten over 
a core or model of wood or stone {repousse) and finished with 
a sharp tool. Such methods are not suitable for statuary. 
Solid bronze statues are too costly and too heavy ; moreover 
they are likely to crack in cooling. Some early statues were 
made of sheets of bronze beaten over a wooden core and 
fastened together with rivets (sphyrelaton), or cast in sepa- 
rate pieces and welded together, but these must have lacked 
strength, besides being disfigured by numerous sutures. 
Large figures of bronze must be cast hollow, and the making 
of hollow castings was known in Egypt at an early date and 
introduced into Greece about the middle of the sixth century 


A solid casting is easily made ; the molten metal is run 
into a mould which is broken and removed when the metal 
has hardened. But if a hollow casting is to be made, an 
inner core, as well as an outer mould, must be prepared, 

' The proportions vary, and small quantities of zinc, aluminum, silver, 
and other metals are sometimes present in bronze ; but copper is always 
the chief constituent and tin is indispensable. 


and the molten metal must be run in between them. This 
is done by the cire perdue (lost wax) or the sand process. 
Both methods were used in antiquity, as both are used now. 
In the cire perdue process a core of fireproof material is 
made of the shape of the object to be cast, but slightly smaller. 
Over this a coating of wax is applied, and in this coating the 
details of the work are executed. Then a coating of fire- 
proof material is carefully applied over the wax and made 
thick and strong enough to serve as a mould. This outer 
mould and the inner core are fastened together with pins 
of bronze, that they may not change their relative position. 
Various tubes are arranged in the core to serve as vents for 
air, etc. Then the whole is heated to harden the outer 
mould and to melt the wax, which runs out of holes at the 
bottom. Then the molten metal is poured in, filling the 
space formerly occupied by the wax between the mould and 
the core. When the metal has hardened, the mould (and 
the core, so far as possible) is removed, the bronze pins are 
cut off, and any necessary treatment of the surface is per- 

When the sand process is used, a mould is made over the 
finished model, and is then taken off in pieces. These 
pieces are then put together and stuffed with sand (which 
is not pure sand, but a loamy earth which sticks together 
and endures heat). Then the pieces of the mould are re- 
moved, and a sand cast of the model remains. This is 
pared off, that is, its surface is removed to a thickness equal 
to that desired for the bronze of the finished casting. The 
pieces of the mould are then fastened upon this sand core, 
being kept away from it and in the proper positions by bronze 
pins. The bronze is then poured in and allowed to harden, 
after which the mould is removed. Of course the core is 
supplied with tubes, as in the cire perdue process. When 
the sand process is employed, complicated castings are 
usually made in several pieces. In antiquity the cire perdue 
process seems to have been generally preferred. In recent 
years the electrotype or galvanoplastic method is not in- 
frequently employed. The metal is dissolved, the prepared 


mould is placed in the solution, and the metal is deposited 
in the mould. By this means an exceedingly accurate re- 
production of the original model is produced, but the metal 
employed must be pure, and the quality or texture of metal 
thus deposited differs somewhat from that of metal which 
has not been dissolved. 

Patina. — Bronze which has been for centuries buried 
in the earth or exposed to the elements becomes discolored ; 
the original clear yellowish brown changes to some darker 
color, often a bluish green. In antiquity the bronze statues 
were kept clean and bright, but in modern times the coating 
(called patina) that covers ancient bronzes is often much 
admired.^ Modern sculptors therefore frequently produce 
an artificial patina by the use of chemicals. 

■ The chemical composition of the patina varies with the conditions to 
wliich the bronze lias been exposed. 




Early Egyptian Civilization. — The beginnings of Egyp- 
tian sculpture, the first efforts of the dwellers in the valley 
(or, more probably, in the Delta) of the Nile, to form in wood 
or stone a rude likeness of man or beast, are lost to us. 
From a very early period people lived in Egypt, and stone 
implements, clay vessels, and other objects found in graves 
or among the sands of the desert tell of their primitive civil- 
ization, but little has been found among these earliest relics 
to indicate that the people possessed any peculiar artistic 
sense or any exceptional skill of any kind. Hardly any- 
thing that can properly be called sculpture appears until 
the time when Egypt was united under the rule of one mon- 
arch and was far advanced in civilization. Long before 
that, as early as 4241 B.C., the calendar had been intro- 
duced, or rather invented, in the Delta ; the people must 
therefore have possessed no little knowledge of mathematics, 
and were probably by no means rude or uncultured, but 
whatever sculpture existed in those early times has disap- 
peared. It is only after 3400 B.C., when Egypt was united 
under the first known king, Menes, that works of sculpture 
were produced which have come down to us, and there are 
comparatively few monuments of the time of the first two 
dynasties, 3400-2980 B.C. At this time the Egyptian 
sculptor is able to express his thoughts or conceptions 


clearly and with some elegance. His art is no longer in 
its earliest infancy, but shows the results of generations 
of effort.^ 

Sculpture of the Thinite Period. — The sculpture of the 
earliest dynasties is represented by a considerable number 
of monuments, for the most part reliefs, though sculpture 
in the round was also practised. The remains of such 
sculpture are, however, unsatisfactory, owing to their frag- 
mentary condition. The so-called palette of King Narmer, 

' Chronology. — In order to understand the development of Egyptian 
sculpture, or of any other single element of Egyptian civilization, it is nec- 
essary to have in mind at least an outline of Egyptian history and chronol- 
ogy. Such an outline — a bare skeleton — may be given in a few words. 
The predynastic age ends with the accession of King Menes, about 3400 b.c. 
The first two dynasties, whose capital was at This, near the later Abydos, 
ruled until 2980 b.c. During the Thinite period art and civilization ad- 
vanced, but the power and splendor of the Egyptian rulers was much greater 
under the next four dynasties (III-VI), whose capital was at Memphis, a 
little above the modern Cairo. This period, called the Old Kingdom, ex- 
tends from 2980 to 2475 b.c. After this there came a time when the coun- 
try was in an unsettled condition, owing to lack of a strong central power. 
The chief seat of government was at Heracleopolis, but the rulers had neither 
the power nor the wealth of their Memphite predecessors. With the eleventh 
dynasty a stronger and more stable government came into control, and the 
Middle Kingdoni (dynasties XI and XII, 2160-1788, or perhaps 1700 b.c), 
was again a period of prosperity and splendor. The capital was at Thebes. 
After this there was a time during which the local chiefs, or feudal lord.s, 
were semi-independent and often at war with one another, and then the 
country was overrun and conquered by invaders, called the Hyksos, from 
Asia, who settled in the Delta. They were conquered and the whole coun- 
try was united under the eighteenth dynasty, with which the Empire begins, 
about 1580 B.C. The Empire had its seat at Thebes, and continued through 
the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth dynasties, untU 1090 b.c. By 
some writers the period of the Empire is extended to include the Tanite- 
Anionite period, i090-945 B.C. (twenty-first dynasty), though the period 
of decadence really began even before the end of the twentieth dynastj-. 
From 945 to 712 B.C. Egypt was subject to Libyan rulers (dynasties twenty- 
two to twenty-four), after whom an Ethiopian dynasty (the twenty-fifth) 
followed. This dynasty lasted until 063 b.c, though the country was 
under the control of the Assyrians for a short time (670-662 B.C."). A 
native Egyptian dynasty, with the capital at Sais, in the Delta, brought 
with it a restoration of something of the earlier splendor. The period of 
this dynasty, the twenty-sixth, is called the Sai'te period. It lasted from 
663 to 525 B.C., when Egypt was conquered by the Persian Cambyses, to 
remain a part of the Persian empire untU it was conquered by Alexander 
the Great in .332 b.c After Alexander's death, in 323, Egypt was ruled 
by the Ptolemies until it became a Roman province in 30 b.c 

The dates given above are not perfectly certain before the seventh 
century B.C., though the error in any case can hardly be more than a year 
or two at any time later than 2000 b.c The length of the period between 
the Old Kingdom and the Middle Kingdom is somewhat uncertain, and 
therefore the dates given for the Old Kingdoni and the time before it may 
be a hundred j'ears too high or too low. 


who seems to have belonged to the early part of this period, 
may serve as an example of the art of the time. This is a 
rather thin piece of light gray slate, 0.742 m. in length. 
In the middle of the front is a circular depression, in which 
a pigment used for painting the face may have been rubbed 
or ground ; hence this and several other similar objects are 
called palettes, though it is by no means certain that they 
were used for the purpose suggested. The circular depres- 
sion of this palette is framed by the long, curving necks 
of two curious quadrupeds. Above 
them the king, followed by his 
sandal-bearer and preceded by 
four standard-bearers and a high 
official, is gazing at two rows of 
decapitated enemies. At the bot- 
tom of the slab, the king, in the 
shape of a bull, is breaking down 
a wall and trampling upon a fallen 
foe. On the reverse of the palette 
(Fig. 1) the king, wearing the crown 
of Upper Egypt, is about to crush 
with his mace an enemy who has 
already sunk to his knees. The 
god Horus, in the form of a 
hawk, is bringing him other ene- 
mies, symbolized by a head hang- 
ing by a cord. The king is ac- 
companied by a servant who 
carries his sandals and a basin. Above is the king's name be- 
tween two heads of the goddess Hathor, and below are fleeing 
enemies. The relief is low, and the surfaces of the bodies rep- 
resented are flat. Only in the figure of the king is any at- 
tempt made to reproduce details of muscles or anatomy. The 
attitudes of the fleeing enemies are clearly impossible. Evi- 
dently the artist's chief desire was to be understood, and in this 
he has been successful, for the king's action cannot be misin- 
terpreted. There are many faults in drawing, but there is 
no lack of liveliness, and the work is not without delicacy 

Figure 1. — Palette of 
King Narmer. Cairo. (Bor- 
charclt, Kunstwerke aus dem 
Aegyptischen Musewm zu 
Cairo, PI. 19.) 


of finish. Originally, the whole was no doubt gilded or 
colored, or both, so that the general effect was one of great 
brilliancy. The king has here something of the conventional 
dignity seen in later royal statues and reliefs, and firmness 
and purity of line are already noticeable. Other works of the 
Thinite period show that the qualities which distinguish the 
Egyptian sculpture of later times were already beginning 
to show themselves. It is, however, under the Old King- 
dom, in the time of the great pyramid builders, that these 
qualities are fully developed. 

Religion and Art. — This is not the place for an account 
of the Egyptian religion, but one of its tenets had so great 
a part in the development of sculpture that it cannot be 
entirely passed over. The Egyptians believed that after 
death the Ka (the terrestrial soul or double) continued to ex- 
ist and to have need of the body ; therefore the body was 
embalmed and carefully preserved from destruction. If, 
however, the body were destroyed, a likeness of it would 
serve the needs of the Ka, and therefore those who could 
afford it caused likenesses to be made and placed in their 
tombs or those of their deceased relatives. Moreover, the 
Ka had need of food, companionship, and other things which 
the living had enjoyed, and likenesses of all these things 
could take the place of the things themselves. Statues of the 
wife, the children, and the servants of the deceased were 
therefore also placed in the tomb, and the walls were covered 
with representations in relief of animals, hunting scenes, 
harvesting, and the like. Since the statues were to serve 
instead of the body and the reliefs were to take the place of 
real objects, it was essential that they resemble the originals 
as closely as possible. The result is a remarkable develop- 
ment of portraiture in statues and of realism in relief work. 
The representation must be clear and unmistakable, and the 
desire for clearness, which was very strongly felt at a time 
when art was still in its infancy, led to the adoption of cer- 
tain conventions which are especially noticeable in relief work 
and painting. Then, since sculpture and painting were 
practised largely in the service of religion, the conservatism 


natural to religion, especially when controlled by a priest- 
hood, caused the conventions to be retained and practised 
long after they had ceased to be imposed upon the artist by 
his lack of technical skill. 

Sheik el Beled. — The realism of the portraiture of the 
Old Kingdom is admirably exemplified by the statue called 
the Sheik el Beled (village chief) 
in the museum at Cairo (Fig. 2). 
This is a wooden figure, found 
in a tomb of the fifth dynasty 
at Saqqarah. It represents a 
high oflicial named Ke-oper. 
The feet are restored, but the 
rest of the figure is in the con- 
dition in which it was found. 
The eyes consist of pieces of 
opaque white quartz with pupils 
formed of rock crystal, in the 
centre of which is a polished 
metal knob, serving to fasten 
them in and also to give them 
additional brilliancy ; they are 
framed with thin plates of 
bronze, the edges of which form 
the eyelids. The arms are niade 
of separate pieces, and the left 
arm, which is bent and holds a 
staff, is made of two pieces. 
This was not visible when the 
statue was new and complete, 
for the wood was covered with 
fine linen glued smoothly to 
coat of fine stucco covered the 
last fine details of the 
whole was then painted. 

Figure 2. 

- Sheik 

el Beled. 

the surface, and a thin 
linen. In the stucco the 
sculpture were engraved, and the 
In its present condition the statue 
therefore lacks the finish intended by the artist, yet even 
now it is a remarkable piece of portraiture. The man, who 
has already passed the prime of life, has a round, full face 



and a body that is, to say the least, well nourished. Face 
and form alike are those of a good-natured, well-fed, well-to- 
do, and contented person, not a man of delicate sensibilities, 
but one who is sure of himself and his position. A more 
characteristic portrait can hardly be imagined. 

Other Portraits. — Equally characteristic is the portrait 
of a scribe, now in the Louvre (Fig. 3) . This is of limestone, 
colored red, for a brownish red was the color used for the nude 
parts of male figures, the more delicate complexion of women 

being represented by yellow. 
The scribe, seated on the 
ground, is apparently look- 
ing up to his master, ready 
to take down the words that 
fall from his lips. The feet, 
as is very often the case with 
Egyptian statues, are badly 
designed and present a very 
unnatural appearance; but 
the more significant parts of 
the body, and especially the 
head, show most careful ex- 
ecution and most keen obser- 
vation on the part of the ar- 
tist. This scribe was clearly 
a man of intelligence — one 
who could aid his master in 
various ways, not merely by 
taking his dictation or writing down the records of his 
crops, his purchases, and his sales. 

Another remarkable portrait of the Old Kingdom is that 
of the dwarf Knemuhetep (Fig. 4), who was a person of some 
importance, inasmuch as he was keeper of the linen, or some- 
thing of the sort, in the royal palace. But whatever his 
importance, the sculptor reproduced his personal defects 
without flattery or even pity. His short, clumsy legs, his 
long, unwieldy body, his broad head, rather flat on top and 
rising almost to a point at the back, are all set before us in 

FiGUEE 3. — Statue of .Scribe 
Louvre, Paris. 



their natural unloveliness. It may be that the dwarf, brought 
to the palace for the amusement of the king, was reproduced 
in limestone merely to gratify a royal whim, but since the 
statue was found in a tomb, it is more likely that it was made 
at the order of the dwarf himself to serve as an abiding place 
for his Ka, in case his mummy should be destroyed. In 
any event it serves as another example of the perfection of 
portrait sculpture in the time of the Old Kingdom. 

FiQUHE 4. — The 
Dwarf Knemuhetep. 

FiGUKE 5. — Upper Part of Diorite Statue 
of King Khafra (Chephren). Cairo. 

Royal Portraits. — Among Egyptian statues, the portraits 
of kings occupy an important place. Even before the be- 
ginning of the Memphite kingdom, the two types of royal 
portrait were probably fixed, and once fixed they were not 
changed, except in minor details. One type represents the 
monarch standing, with one foot advanced, in the attitude 
of the Sheik el Beled (Fig. 2), except that both hands hang 
down and touch the thighs ; the other shows him seated, in 
an attitude of perfect immobility. Examples of both types 



are numerous. One of the best known is a seated portrait of 
Chephren (Khafra), the builder of the second of the great 
pyramids at Ghizeh (Fig. 5). This was found at Ghizeh, 

not far from . the pyra- 
mids. It is a little 
above life size, and is 
carved in dark green 
diorite, a very hard 
stone, which must have 
been difficult indeed to 
carve with the imper- 
fect tools of the fourth 
dynasty. In attitude 
and in clothing the king 
is not distinguished from 
others whose statues are 
preserved, but his head 
is not bare or covered 
with a wig, as is the 
case with others ; it is 
covered with the royal 
hood (called in modern 
times by the Coptic 
name klaft), which 
stands out at the sides 
and falls over the shoul- 
ders in front. This adds 
width to the head, and 
dignity to the aspect. 
The urgeus serpent, 
which once rose from 
the band above the fore- 
head, is broken off. The 
king wears a beard, called 
the Osiriac beard, as another symbol of his royalty. The 
god Horus, in the form of his sacred hawk, spreads his wings 
as if to protect the king. This last detail (the presence of 
the hawk) is not a regular part of the royal type of statue. 

Figure 6. — Mycerinus and his Queen, 
group of slate. Boston, Museum of Fine 


but various attributes are employed to show that the king is 
identified with the gods or is under their especial protection. 
The throne upon which Chephren sits has lions' heads at the 
front corners of the seat and its feet have the shape of lions' 
claws. On one side it is decorated with stalks of lotus and 
papyrus and with the symbol sam, typifying the union of 
Upper and Lower Egypt. The face of the king is calm and 
powerful. It is not expressionless, and yet the expression 
has little of a purely personal character. One feels that the 
statue is a portrait, but not simply a portrait of a person. 
It is the portrait of a king, who is not merely a man like other 
men, but the embodiment of sovereignty, the representative 
of the gods on earth. Not all the royal portraits of Egypt 
are as impressive as this one of Chephren, but the type seen 
here is preserved with little change from age to age. The 
limestone of which far the greatest number of Egyptian 
statues consist, is not a very strong stone, and probably for 
that reason the sculptors often refrained from separating the 
less bulky parts of their statues entirely from the block out 
of which they were carved. Many standing statues, in fact, 
are almost to be classed as high reliefs, for they are attached 
to a background of stone from the shoulders to the feet, or 
even throughout their entire length. The custom of leaving 
the background as a support is extended to harder materials 
and even to seated figures and groups ; it continues in vogue 
throughout the various periods of Egyptian history. A 
fine example of royal portraits executed in this manner is 
the group of Mycerinus, builder of the third pyramid, and 
his queen (Fig. 6), which was found at Ghizeh. 

Early Bronze Statues. — Even as early as the Old King- 
dom, the Egyptians were skilful workers of metal. In the 
museum at Cairo are two statues of copper, representing 
King Pepi I, of the sixth dynasty, and his son Menthesuphis. 
The statue of the king is not so well preserved as that of the 
prince, which is corroded, to be sure, but still wonderfully 
perfect. The sheets of copper were, it seems, cast in ap- 
proximately the desired forms, then laid upon a core of wood 
and beaten into the exact shape of the statue, after which 


details were engraved. The eyes were set in, and were 
naturally of other materials. The youthful forms of the 
prince are reproduced with a mastery equal to that shown 
in the working of wood and stone by the artists of the Sheik 
el Beled and the statue of Chephren, and the quality of the 
portraiture is in no way inferior to the technical skill exhibited. 
The Law of Frontality. — In all these statues the so-called 
law of frontality is observed ; the postures are such that a 
line drawn through the nose, the breast bone, and the navel 
would be a straight line and would divide the statue into 
equal halves, the only differences between the two parts being 
due to the fact that in standing figures the left foot is advanced 
and sometimes one arm is partially extended, and that in 
seated figures the two arms are not always in the same posi- 
tion. Even when a person is represented kneading dough, 
grinding corn, or busy in some other active occupation, the 
Egyptian sculptor refrains from any attempt to represent 
contorted or even free attitudes. The law of frontality, 
which poises all heads evenly upon the neck, with the face 
turned directly forward, and keeps the body straight, without 
turning or bending, gives the statues an aspect of immobility, 
in spite of their great realism in feature and expression and 
their masterly technical execution. This law is retained in 
Egyptian statuary through the long centuries of Egyptian 
art. Only in some small works, chiefly of industrial art, is 
it abandoned. 

Reliefs of the Old Kingdom. — Egyptian relief sculpture 
projects but slightly from the background ; it is always low 
relief. Sometimes the background is cut away only imme- 
diately about the figures, so that the latter do not project at 
all beyond the surface of the stone, and occasionally figures 
are carved in intaglio, like the figures in seals, but usually 
the sculptured decoration of walls and similar surfaces is 
done in low relief throughout all the periods of Egyptian art. 
The reliefs of the Old Kingdom come from tombs, those of 
later periods from tombs and temples. The subjects repre- 
sented are portraits, scenes from daily life, the trials and ex- 
periences of the soul after death, the gods in various group- 



ings, and the exploits of the kings. During the Old Kingdom 
the subjects are virtually only offerings to the dead, scenes 
from daily life, such as hunting, fishing, harvesting, driving 
cattle, and the like, and a limited number of scenes pertain- 
ing to the life hereafter. 

A wooden panel from the 
tomb of Hesy-re, at Saqqara, 
may serve to illustrate the height 
attained by relief sculpture under 
the third dynasty. The chief 
figure on this panel (Fig. 7) is 
a little less than half life size. 
The relief is low, but the surfaces 
of the figure are nevertheless not 
flat or lifeless, but are modelled 
with the utmost delicacy. The 
outlines are clear and vigorous, 
betraying not the slightest trace 
of timidity or hesitation on the 
part of the artist. Evidently his 
eye was trained to see and his 
hand to create the beauty that 
dwells in perfect lines. Even in 
the small images in the hiero- 
glyphic inscription and in the 
writing instruments held in the 
hand of the chief figure, the de- 
tails are wrought with the utmost 
care. In design and execution alike this panel (which is 
one of three found in the same tomb) is a masterpiece. 

Another example of relief work is the decoration of part of 
a wall of the tomb of Sabu, a priest of Ptah, who lived under 
the sixth dynasty (Fig. 8). Here we see in the upper 
register two statues of the deceased, one standing and one 
seated, being dragged along on sledges by his sons and 
servants, while before each a man is burning incense. In the 
next register women, who we are told by the inscriptions 
personify the villages which contribute in honor of the dead, 

FiGUEE 7. — Wooden Panel 
from the Tomb of Hesy-re. 



are bringing animals and the fruits of the field. In the third 
register butchers are cutting up the carcasses of animals. 
Below this scene are the ships of the deceased on the Nile ; 
in one the mast is being raised, and in the other a monkey 

Figure S. — Relief from the Tomb of Sabu, Cairo. (Borchardt, Kunstwerke 
aus dem Aegyptischen Museum zu Cairo, PI. 22.) 

is walking on the deck of the cabin. In the lowest register 
the deceased sits at the left end, while his son leads toward 
him his flocks and herds, and a crouching scribe writes the 
list of them on a tablet. No single figure here is quite as 


fine as the figure on the wooden tablet, but the same general 
excellence of modelling and line prevails. 

Conventions of Egyptian Art. — These reliefs, like nearly 
all Egyptian works of sculpture, were originally colored, 
which added to the clearness of the whole as well as to the 
brilliancy of appearance. In fact, if it were not for the 
delicate modelling of the surfaces, we might almost say that 
the carving was secondary to the coloring, — that the reliefs 
were paintings outlined by the sculptor rather than sculp- 
ture colored by the painter. The surfaces are, however, so 
exquisitely treated, at least in some instances, that the 
sculptor's work is clearly more important than that of the 
painter. In reliefs, as well as in paintings, certain conven- 
tions are observed, not only in the period of theOld Kingdom, 
but also in the later times. Human beings are represented 
with the head in profile, the eye as seen from the front, the 
shoulders also as seen from the front, and the legs and feet 
in profile. The purpose of this method is the attainment of 
the greatest possible clearness. The outline, or silhouette, 
of the human head, when seen from the front or the back, 
is not characteristic, and the same is true of the silhouette 
of the legs and feet ; on the other hand, there is nothing 
of interest in the outline of the shoulders, when seen from the 
side. The Egyptian artist, wishing to show the human being 
in the clearest possible manner, presents each part as if seen 
from the point of view which brings out its characteristics 
most plainly. Undoubtedly this method was followed by 
the earliest artists because they could not make their meaning 
clear in any other way ; ' but it was followed in later ages as 
a convention established by habit and tradition. The 
result is that the figures of Egyptian reliefs and paintings 
are unnatural, especially in the transition from the front 
view of the shoulders and trunk to the profile view of the 
legs, though the workmanship is usually so fine that one 

I Lowy (The Rendering of Nature in Early Greek Art) would attribute 
these peculiarities to the fact that the primitive artist draws not from na- 
ture, but from memory, and therefore draws each part as he remembers it. 
This is no doubt the case, but the wish to make his intention clear is also 
an important factor almost from the first. 


hardly notices that the attitudes are impossible. In the por- 
trayal of animals similar conventions are observed with similar 
effects. So quadrupeds are always seen from the side, but 
the horns of cattle are represented as if seen from the front. 

Local Differences. — Not all the works of the Old King- 
dom are equal to those which have been mentioned and 
illustrated above. The best art was then, as in the Thinite 
period before, to be found at or near the royal court. Other 
works exhibit less skill in workmanship and less beauty of 
design, and some local peculiarities can be distinguished; 
but the progress of art is to be followed in the works of the 
best artists, not in those of the provincial sculptors, and 
therefore it will not be necessary to say any more about the 
various local schools. The local differences are, in fact, 
hardly such as to warrant the use of the word "school" to 
designate them. This remark applies to the art of the later 
periods, as well as to that of the Old Kingdom. 

Dynasties VII to X. — After the end of the sixth dynasty 
Egypt was in a more or less disturbed condition for nearly 
three hundred years. Art continued to be practised, but 
there were no monarchs who had such resources as those of 
the Memphite kings or who maintained so splendid a court. 
During this time sculpture, and art in general, made little 
or no progress. The traditions and conventions established 
in the earlier period were maintained, but the quality of 
workmanship was, as a rule, inferior to that of earlier times. 
Probably the number of works created was much less than 
before, and certainly the number now known, which belong 
to this epoch, is relatively small. These works are not of 
such interest as to demand our attention. They show that 
sculpture did not die out, and they exhibit some local differ- 
ences, but this period may, as a whole, be regarded as a time 
in which the condition of art was at best stationary, even 
though here and there some really good work may have been 

The Middle Kingdom. — With the eleventh dynasty the 
Middle Kingdom begins, and for three centuries there was 
once more a rich and splendid court, though the power of 



the kings was more limited than it had been while the Old 
Kingdom lasted . The settled government naturally increased 
the prosperity of the country, and therefore even at places 
removed from the royal court art was more successfully 
practised than in the preceding period of unrest. The con- 
ventions and traditions of Memphite art still lived, but the 
art of the Middle Kingdom (the First Theban Period) differs 
in some respects from 
that of the earlier time. 
There are also differ- 
ences to be seen between 
the works produced at 
different places and dif- 
ferent times during the 
Middle Kingdom. In 
Middle Egypt the tra- 
ditions of the Memphite 
period had been, appar- 
ently, more carefully fol- 
lowed during the period 
of unrest than in places, 
such as Thebes, more re- 
mote from the old capi- 
tal, though the sculptors 
of Heracleopolis exhib- 
ited some independence 
even in the time of 
the tenth dynasty. At 
Thebes the sculpture of 
the early part of the eleventh dynasty was much less 
finished than that of the sixth dynasty had been. 
Evidently the sculptors were less completely under the 
influence of the old tradition and less perfectly trained 
in the old methods than those were who worked in 
the vicinity of Memphis. But when the Theban kings 
had established their rule firmly, they made, as it seems, 
conscious efforts to imitate the works of art of the Old 
Kingdom. Probably artists were brought to Thebes from 

Figure 9. — Upper Part of Statue of 
King Amenemhet III. Cairo. (Borchardt, 
Kunstwerke aus dem Aegyptischen Museum 
zu Cairo, PL 6.) 





Middle Egypt. The result of the influence of artists trained 
in the old methods of accuracy and refinement upon the 
less skilful but more independent sculptors of Thebes was 
the de^'elopment of a school which produced works of 

fine technical execution 
differing somewhat from 
the works created under 
the Old Kingdom. Re- 
liefs stand out somewhat 
more from the back- 
ground, and the atti- 
tudes represented are 
occasionally less con- 
ventional. Portraits of 
kings, too, are less ideal- 
ized and are therefore 
more natural than those 
of the latter part of the 
Memphite period. 

The portrait of the 
youthful Amenemhet III, 
of the twelfth dynasty, is 
a good example of sculp- 
ture of the Middle King- 
dom (Fig. 9). The head- 
dress and the attitude 
are those which had be- 
come typical under the 
Old Kingdom, but the 
face shows all the indi- 
vidual peculiarities of the 
royal youth. A sphinx 
represents the same mon- 
arch in later life and with 
the dignity and grandeur 
of his station emphasized 
by the physical greatness and strength of the lion's body 
which symbolizes the royal power. The relief of the funerary 

Figure 10. — Relief from the Tomb 
of Menthu-weser. Metropolitan Museum, 
New York. 


stele of Menthu-weser (Fig. 10) may serve as an example of 
relief work of the eleventh dynasty. The deceased, a " domain 
superintendent" who administered lands for the king, is 
represented seated before a table of offerings. The relief 
is somewhat higher than was customary under the Old 
Kingdom, and the right shoulder is to some extent fore- 
shortened, so that the effect produced is one of greater 
liveliness and nearness to nature, and also of somewhat less 
delicacy. The modelling is, however, very fine, and all 
details are wrought with minute and tender care. Evi- 
dently the artists of the Middle Kingdom, while following 
closely the traditions and conventions established under 
the Old Kingdom, were not slavish imitators. They pos- 
sessed some originality, which shows itself in spite of tradi- 
tion and is the more attractive because associated with 
beauty of technique and careful treatment of details. Never- 
theless it must, in general, be conceded that they are inferior 
to the great artists of the Old Kingdom who produced such 
masterpieces as the Sheik el Beled or the crouching scribe 
of the Louvre and who fashioned the moulds in which Egyptian 
art was formed and in which it continued throughout the 
long centuries of its existence. 

The Empire. — Of the period which immediately followed 
the Middle Kingdom little is to be said. The progress of art 
cannot be accurately traced, partly because material is not 
abundant and partly on account of the difficulty of dating 
accurately the monuments which exist. With the second 
Theban period, called the Empire, which begins with the 
eighteenth dynasty, the number of monuments becomes 
very great. At first sight there seems to be little difference 
between these works and those of the Middle Kingdom, but 
on closer examination it is clear that the expansion of the 
Egyptian power, the increased intercourse with foreign 
peoples, and the prosperity of the country brought new life 
into the practice of the arts. Even in the days of the Old 
Kingdom some statues had been made larger than life, and 
the great Sphinx at Ghizeh — not to mention the pyramids — 
had shown plainly that colossal dimensions appealed strongly 



to Egyptian taste. Under the Empire colossal statues were 
multiplied. The figure of Rameses II which lies in the 
palm grove near Bedrashen is 42 feet high ; the great seated 
statues of Amenophis III which were before his temple in 
the plain opposite Thebes are, without their pedestals, 52 
feet in height, and are even now impressive by force of sheer 
size, in spite of their ruined condition ; and the seated figures . 

Figure 11. — Facade of Great Rock-hewn Temple at Abu Simbel. 

of Rameses II, hewn out of the solid rock, which decorate 
the facade of the great rock-cut temple at Abu Simbel 
(Fig. 11), are 65 feet high. Colossal statues of less stupen- 
dous size are numerous, and some of the figures in relief which 
adorn the pylons of temples are of equally impressive dimen- 
sions. The heads of kings are now often surmounted by 
great symbolic head-dresses, in which attributes of deities 
are strangely mingled, showing the development of religious 
beliefs and the increased worship of the king as a deity on earth. 



Reliefs and paintings had always been freely used, but now 
they cover the entire inner walls of immense temples and the 
fronts of gigantic pylons. The sculpture (and the same is 
true of the architecture) of the Empire is astounding by 
virtue of its quantity. The activity of the artists must have 
been unremitting, especially under the nineteenth dynasty. 

In such a vast num- 

ber of works, many of 
which are of great size, 
there are naturally great 
differences in quality. 
Some sculptures of this 
period are more or less 
mechanical and perfunc- 
tory in design and execu- 
tion, but the best works 
are dignified, carefully 
designed, and exquisitely 
wrought. Some statues 
are too smooth in their 
finish, so that they seem 
to lack power, and some 
sculptors apparently af- 
fected great slenderness 
in their figures, but the 
best works of the Em- 
pire are truly admirable. 
Some of the extant monu- 
ments, especially among 
the larger reliefs, now 
seem coarse and unfinished, because the coat of fine stucco 
in which the details were executed has been destroyed. 

An excellent example of the lifelike portraiture and delicate 
workmanship of the sculpture of the Empire is the head of 
the goddess Mut now in the museum at Cairo (Fig. 12). 
It is of colossal size, but has a human, intimate quality seldom 
seen in heads of more than natural dimensions. The head- 
dress (and fragments of the statue to which the head be- 

riGUBEl2. — The Goddess Mut. Cairo. 
(Borchardt, Kunstwerke aus dem Aegyp- 
tischen Mtiseum zu Cairo, PI. 13.) 


longed) shows that the goddess, not some royal princess or 
queen, is represented. The full lips are smiling, almost 
coquettish, the nose is retrousse, and the almond-shaped eyes, 
slightly myopic, apparently, have an almost amorous look. 
Evidently the face of the goddess is really a portrait of the 
artist's model, in whom it is tempting to recognize some 
reigning beauty of the time. 


T^'i, " 



L - ■ K' 

♦-■ ■ 


„ ff ' 

;-- - 










■'' '-i. 






' ' 






u.^. ..««-. 

1' ;r°'ii!iw 

■i- ' 


1 " 

TV ■:— - ;'-■ 



,- - ' T- -■ 

" r 

' ' i':' 








I ■; 

Figure 13. — Reliefs in the Temple of Seti I at Abydos. 

Among the many beautiful reliefs of the time of the Empire 
none excel those which cover the walls of the temple at 
Abydos (Fig. 13). They date from the reign of Seti I. In 
purity of line and exquisite modelling of surface they are 
unsurpassed. The artist was limited by the accepted con- 
ventions of his art, but he was no mechanical imitator of his 
predecessors, and the refinement of the work shows not 



merely manual training, but the loving devotion of the 
artist to whom his art is the one great interest in life. 

It would be easy to multiply examples of the admirable 
works of sculpture produced during the Empire. In the 
best of them the qualities of careful workmanship, dignified 
attitudes, and, within the limits set by tradition, good com- 
position are always pres- 
ent. Perhaps there is 
less freshness and origi- 
nality than in the best 
works of the Old King- 
dom, but the general 
average is so high, the 
multitude of works so 
great, and their scale in 
many instances so vast, 
that the period of the 
Empire may justly claim 
to be considered the 
greatest period of Egyp- 
tian art. 

Art after the Time of 
the Empire. — As the 
power of the Empire de- 
clined, the productive- 
ness of the Egyptian art- 
ists decreased and at the 
same time the quality of 
their work deteriorated. 
It became more mechan- 
ical, even when it was 
still fine in execution. The various conquerors of the country 
brought with them no new artistic inspiration. The 
old traditions were followed with little variation, and the 
natural result was a loss of spontaneity and vigor. Some 
of the works of this period of decadence are good, some are 
even interesting, but the greater number are mediocre. 
The knowledge of technical processes, however, was pre- 

FiGURE 14. — Upper Part of Statuette of 
Queen Karomama. The Louvre, Paris. 


served, and portraiture, always an important part of Egyptian 
art, continued to be practised with success, but there was 
little or no progress. 

An admirable example of the fine work which was done in 
the period, which is, after all, a time of decadence, is the 
statuette of Queen Karomama (twenty-second dynasty) 
now in the Louvre (Fig. 14). It is nearly two feet high, of 
bronze encrusted or inlaid with gold. The slender figure 
of the queen is clad in a closely fitting costume, through 
which the form of her body appears. About her neck and 
shoulders she wears a broad collar or necklace, the details 
of which are wrought in gold. On her head is a ceremonial 
wig. Her face is serious and dignified, and her attitude con- 
ventional. It is not merely the woman, but the queen 
and priestess whom the artist has represented, and he has 
done his Avork well. 

Under the twenty-sixth dynasty Egypt was again governed 
by native rulers. They had their seat at Sais, and during 
the brief Saite period a serious attempt was made to revive 
the ancient glories of the Egyptian race. The monuments of 
earlier days were restored and many new works were created, 
some of which are of considerable beauty. The sculptors 
were evidently trained with great care. Stone models, 
some of which are now in the Metropolitan Museum in New 
York, others in the Louvre and elsewhere, testify to the 
schooling of the incipient artists. In general the tendency 
was toward imitation of ancient works, but the sculpture of 
this period may usually be distinguished from that of earlier 
times by the excessi^'e smoothness of finish and the lack of 
fine modulation of surface. There is, however, no lack of 
manual skill, and portraits are often well wrought and ex- 
pressive. There is also a tendency at this time and later 
toward greater slenderness of the human form, the total 
height being often nine times that of the head. 

Throughout the entire period from the overthrow of the 
Empire until Egyptian art came to an end and was merged 
in the Graeco-Oriental art of the early Christian centuries, 
old types were repeated with varying degrees of care in de- 


sign and execution. At a comparatively late date, portrait 
heads are realistic and full of life, even when the bodies of 
the same statues are obviously modelled without any careful 
study of the living form. In the Ptolemaic and the Roman 
times, much sculpture of purely Greek and Graeco-Roman 
style was produced in Egypt, and at the same time the old 
Egyptian types were constantly repeated. Even upon these, 
however, Greek art exerted its influence, and some works 
show clearly the effect of acquaintance with Greek taste 
and tradition. Egyptian sculpture had by this time ceased 
to be a living, vital art. Its works still show technical skill, 
careful training, and industry, but no higher qualities. 


Babylonia. — Babylonia, also called Chaldaea, is the southern 
part of the region watered by the Euphrates and Tigris rivers — 
a flat, alluvial land, actually formed by the deposits which the 
rivers have brought from the higher land at the north, as Egypt 
has been formed by the deposits of the Nile. In early times 
the northern part of Babylonia was called Akkad, the southern 
part Sumer. Almost from the earliest period of which we 
have any knowledge, the country was occupied in part by 
Semitic folk, but the earlier inhabitants, who are conveniently 
called Sumerians, were not Semitic. The Semitic power 
and influence seems to have spread from the north southward. 
The plain was kept fertile by means of canals which regu- 
lated and distributed the waters of the Euphrates and the 
Tigris. Many cities existed in Babylonia, and their relative 
importance varied from time to time. It was not until nearly 
2000 B.C. that Babylon gained the chief power and made 
the other cities her vassals. Of the beginnings of civiliza- 
tion in Babylonia little is known, though it is clear that there, 
as elsewhere, a Stone Age preceded the introduction of metal. 
Our real knowledge of conditions of Babylonian life does not 
begin until a time when civilization was far advanced, when 
organized states existed, laws were enacted, and writing (in 
cuneiform script, chiefly on clay tablets) was practised. 

Early Babylonian Reliefs. — Among the earliest known 
examples (apart from some rude clay figurines) of Babylonian 
sculpture is a fragmentary relief which decorated a round 
base or pedestal at Lagash (modern Tello). It may reason- 
ably be ascribed to a time slightly before 3000 B.C. (De 
Sarzec, Decouvertes en Chaldee, PI. 47, No. 1). Here a ruler, 



distinguished by the curved scimitar in his right hand, is 
holding in his left hand an object of uncertain use, as if to 
give it to a spearman who stands before him. The king 
wears a beard and long hair, the spearman long hair but no 
beard. Of the other persons represented, some have both 
hair and beard, others are bald and beardless. All wear a 
skirt reaching nearly to the ankles. The execution of the 
work is not with- 
out vigor, but 
lacks care, and 
there -is little 
delicacy of 
modelling. An- 
other small re- 
lief, which repre- 
sents King Ur- 
Nina {ca. 3000 
B.C.) and his 
family, shows 
similar qualities 
(De Sarzec, De- 
couvertes en 
Chaldee, PI. 2 '"^, 
No. 1). 

The "Vulture 
Stele "of Eanna- 
tum, grandson 
of Ur-Nina (De 

Sarzec, Decouvertes en Chaldee, Pis. 3, 3 '"^ 48, 48 '"^), is the 
finest example of early Sumerian sculpture, and this is un- 
fortunately very fragmentary. On the front of the stele a 
god holds a great net adorned with the lion-headed eagle of 
Lagash. In the net is a confused mass of the nude bodies of 
slain enemies. A lesser deity stood behind the god, and 
below was, apparently, a chariot. On the back are parts of 
four rows of battle scenes (Fig. 15) and (above) vultures 
carrying away the heads of the slain. The whole celebrates 
the victories which Eannatum gained with the god's help. 

Figure IS. — Fragments of the 
The Louvre, Paris. (De Sarzec, 
Chaldee, PI. 3 >'''.) 

'Vulture Stele." 
DScouvertes en 



The execution is similar to that of the eariier works, but 
better, more careful, and more refined. In the battle scenes 
the troops appear in serried ranks, not in separate groups of 
combatants; dramatic effect is therefore wanting. 

Statue from Bismya. — Few 
statues in the round can be 
ascribed to the period before 
Sargon (Sharrukin) founded 
the Semitic dynasty of Akkad, 
about 2850 B.C. Among them 
the statue of King Daudu (or 
Esar) of Adab, which Dr. 
Banks found at Bismya, is 
especially interesting (Fig. 16). 
The king wears a skirt of many 
layers, or flounces, but appar- 
ently without folds, exactly like 
the skirts seen on the plaque of 
Ur-Nina. From the waist up 
he is nude, his hair is shorn or 
shaven, and he wears no beard. 
The features are regular and 
not unpleasing, for the nose 
is less prominent and the fore- 
head less retreating than is the 
case with some early Baby- 
Ionian heads. The eyes, as is 
usual in statues of this period, 
were made of different material 
and inserted in their sockets. 
The stiff, upright attitude and 
the folded hands are seen also 
in other archaic figures. This statue excels others of this 
early period in execution and also because the arms are in 
great part free from the body. Even this work, however, 
cannot be greatly admired. The industrial arts of Baby- 
lonia at this time, the metal work, as seen in a fine silver 
vase of King Entemena, of Lagash, and the seal-cutting, 

Figure 16. — Statue from Bismya 


as exemplified by early seal-cylinders, are superior to the 

Stele of Naram-Sin. — The most remarkable monument 
of sculpture left by the dynasty of Sargon of Akkad is the 
stele of Naram-Sin (apparently the son of Sargon), which 
was found at Susa (Fig. 
17). It was carved to 
commemorate Naram- 
Sin 's victories over the 
mountain tribe of the 
Lulubu. The king, a 
gigantic figure, wearing 
a horned helmet, a short 
kilt, and sandals, is at 
the head of his army in 
the ascent of a mountain 
path. His foot is set 
upon a fallen foe ; be- 
fore him, still further 
symbolizing his victory, 
an enemy falls trans- 
fixed by a spear and an- 
other man advances with 
hands raised in supplica- 
tion. The king is truly 
a dignified, commanding 
figure. There is some 
sameness in the attitudes 
of his followers, but they 
appear as individuals, 
and are no longer mere 
masses, like the soldiers 
on the "Vulture Stele." 
Moreover the trees and the unevenness of the steep ascent 
are clearly represented, and the enemy who falls pierced by 
the spear is admirably drawn. This stele is unsurpassed 
among works of early Babylonian sculpture in relief. Several 
other reliefs of approximately the same period exist, which 

Figure 17. — Stele of Naram-Sin. 
The Louvre, Paris. 


resemble this more or less closely, though none equals it in 
excellence of design and execution. The seals of the Sar- 
gonic period are hardly equalled, and certainly not excelled, 
by those of any other time, and the scanty remains of metal 
work also bear witness to the high state of art imder the 
Semitic rulers of Akkad. 

Sculpture ai Lagash. — After the fall of the Sargonid 

dynasty of Akkad, Sumerian 
d^'nasties again became pow- 
erful in several cities of the 
South. At Lagash the most 
important ruler was Gudea, 
who reigned as patesi, with- 
out assuming the title of 
king, about 2550 B.C. In 
liis palace several statues and 
works in relief have been 
found. The statues are of 
dark, almost black, diorite, 
a very hard and durable 
stone, which must have been 
expensive in Babylonia, as it 
had to be imported from a 
distance. With one excep- 
tion (Fig. IS), the statues of 
Gudea are headless, but sev- 
eral heads were found. All 
but two of the statues are 
under life size. There are 
two tN^pes, one standing, the 
other seated. Some of the 
heads are bare and shaven, 
others are covered with a cap which has some resemblance to a 
turban. The clothing is a hea^y cloak, so arranged as to leave 
the right arm and shoulder bare and to fall stiffly to the ankles. 
In these statues, as in Babylonian and AssjTian sculptm-e 
generally, inscriptions are introduced without regard to the 
artistic effect. The postures are stiffly conventional, the 



-Statue of Gudea, from 
The Lou-vTe, Paris. 


feet are ill formed, the clasped hands, though wrought with 
exquisite care in detail, are imperfectly shaped, with exces- 
sively long, curved fingers, the necks are too short, even 
though the Sumerians were a short-necked race. Yet with 
all their defects, these statues are dignified and impressive. 
The mouths and eyes are excellent and natural, the cheeks 
and chins are Well modelled. There is a sound realism, 
especially in the heads, which makes the statues of Gudea 
take rank with the best works of Babylonian sculpture. It is 
partly for this reason that the archaic period has been said 
to end with the Sargonid dynasty of Akkad, and the following 
period, extending to the Kassite conquest in the seventeenth 
century B.C., is called the period of developed art. 

Relief work of the time of Gudea exhibits the qualities 
which the statues would lead us to expect. Details are con- 
scientiously wrought, but perspecti^'e is incorrect, attitudes 
are, on the whole, stiff and conventional, the eyes of heads 
in profile are likely to be made as if seen from the front, and 
yet there is a degree of truth to nature which gives real 
aesthetic value to these compositions. 

Sculpture at Ur and Babylon. — About 2450 B.C. a dynasty 
came into power at Ur, which lasted somewhat more than a 
century. The founder of the dynasty was Ur-Engur, who 
was succeeded by his son, Dungi. In their time much 
excellent metal work was done, especially in heads and figures 
of animals. Some small figures of terra-cotta and other 
materials and many seals also exist which prove that good 
work was done in the lesser forms of art, but there are. few 
works of large sculpture. At this time and in the centuries 
that followed, the sculptors possessed no little facility, and 
some works, chiefly of small size, exhibit something that 
approaches grace and elegance, but in general it can hardly 
be said that there was any great advance after the time of 
Gudea. The members of the first Semitic dynasty of Baby- 
lon were patrons of art, but the stele on which Hammurabi 
(ca. 2100 B.C.) inscribed his laws, though it is carved with 
accuracy and, apparently, with ease, lacks the spontaneity of 
the earlier works. It is, however, rash to judge of the art of 



the early dynasties of Babylon, because the existing monu- 
ments are too few. It is evident, however, that their art is a 
continuation of the art which flourished centuries before 
under Gudea, for instance, at Lagash. 

Later Babylonian Sculpture. — In spite of the excava- 
tions carried on in recent years, few works of Babylonian 
sculpture exist to serve as a record of progress after the 

first dynasty of 
Babylon. In 
general, it seems 
that the old 
traditions of art 
were preserved, 
and the ten- 
dency toward 
mechanical, un- 
work increased. 
The tablet of 
King X a b il- 
a p 1 u - i d d i n 
(ninth century - 
B.C.), on which 
he recorded his restoration of the temple of Shamash at 
Sippara, is perhaps a copy of an earlier work, yet in general 
character it is a good example of the Babylonian sculpture 
of the period (Fig. 19). Some of the enamelled brick reliefs 
(especially animals) which adorned the walls of Nebuchadnez- 
zar (604-561 B.C.) at Babylon are spirited and powerful, 
but they may owe their merits to Assyrian influence, for the 
Assyrians had been the ruling power in ^Mesopotamia from 
the thirteenth century until the rise of the so-called Neobaby- 
lonian Empire (tenth dynasty of Babylon) in 625 B.C., 
which came to an end when the Persian Cyrus took Babylon 
in 539-538. The revi^■al of Babylonian art under the tenth 
dynasty seems, to judge by the existing records, to have been, 
for the most part, confined to the restoration and imitation 
of the works of earlier centuries. The existing sculpture of 

Figure 19. — Tablet of XabA-aplu-iddin. 



this period is almost entirely limited to small reliefs, figurines, 
and seals ; it exhibits care in detail, and a certain mechanical 
excellence, but little originality or real life. 

Assyria. — Assyria is the country along the Tigris river, 
to the north and northeast of Babylonia. Whereas Baby- 
lonia is a rich, flat, alluvial plain, containing little or no 
stone, Assyria is for the most part a country of hills and 
valleys, plentifully supplied with stone. The rather soft 
Assyrian alabaster is excellent material for sculpture, though 
not equal to the best of the Egyptian limestone and far 
inferior to Greek marble. The earliest inhabitants of Assy- 
ria were apparently not Semitic; but a Semitic race, the 
Assyrians of history, took possession of the country at an 
early date. Civilization was at that time already far ad- 
vanced in Babylonia, and the Assyrians adopted Babylonian 
civilization. Like the Babylonians they built palaces and 
temples of crude brick (though their country offered suitable 
stone in abundance), like them they wrote in cuneiform script 
upon clay tablets. Though different places paid the highest 
honors to different gods, the religion of the Assyrians was in 
most respects identical with that of the Babylonians. The 
Assyrians, however, considered themselves the peculiar people 
of the god Asshur, from whom they derived their name. 
They were a nation of warriors ; their god was a war-god, to 
whom conquests were pleasing. Babylonian rulers warred 
with their neighbors, and even extended their rule beyond the 
limits of Babylonia to Syria and Armenia, but it was re- 
served for the Assyrians to conquer Egypt, as well as Syria, 
Phoenicia, and great regions to the north, northeast, and 
east of their own country. 

Assyrian Sculpture. — The chief monuments of Assyrian 
sculpture are reliefs carved in slabs of alabaster, which once 
adorned (and protected from injury) the lower parts of the 
walls of the palaces of Assyrian kings. They record the 
glories of the monarchs and commemorate their victories in 
war and in the chase. Beside the doorways were great man- 
headed winged bulls, or sometimes lions, to guard the portals, 
and sculptured demons also served to strike terror into any 


approaching enemy. All these sculptures were colored, and 
the colors, which have now disappeared, must have added 
greatly to their effect. Records were also carved upon stelae, 
or separate slabs, on the slightly tapering monuments called 
"Assyrian obelisks," and occasionally upon the living rock. 
Excellent work was done in beaten (repousse) and cast 
bronze, but large bronze works are unknown. Assyrian 
seals, which may be regarded as works of sculpture in minia- 
ture, are numerous, and many of them are excellent. 

Assyrian Statues. — Assyrian statues are few. Probably 
the earliest known is a figure of life size,^ which was found at 
Asshur in September, 1905. Unfortunately the head and 
hands are missing. The material is a hard, dark stone, resem- 
bling basalt, and the statue recalls in attitude and in costume 
the standing statues of the Babylonian Gudea (page 28). 
There are, to be sure, some slight differences in costume. 
This Assyrian wears a thick belt, which Gudea did not, and a 
string of beads encircles his neck ; moreover, he has a long, 
waving beard which falls over his breast. The muscular 
development of the arms is greatly exaggerated, and the 
shoulder-blades appear as almost circular disks. On the 
whole, this figure, which may be dated about 2000 B.C., is 
decidedly inferior to the statues of Gudea. A nude female 
torso in London, dated in the eleventh century B.C., is care- 
fully finished, but not well proportioned. The few later 
statues which exist are apparently much affected by the relief 
style. Perhaps the most interesting among them is a lime- 
stone figure of Asshurnazirpal III in the British Museum. 
In general, Assyrian sculpture, evidently Babylonian in its 
origin, developed as relief sculpture, not as sculpture in the 

Assyrian Reliefs — Tiglathpileser I and Asshurnazirpal. — • 
One of the earliest known examples of Assyrian relief work 
is carved in the rock at Korkhar, about fifty miles from Diar- 
bekr. It represents the king, Tiglathpileser I {ca. 1100 B.C.), 

' Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin, 29, December, 
1905, figs. 22 and 23. Some still earlier examples of Assyrian work in the 
round, closely resembling the early Sumerian sculptures, are figured ibid. 
49, p. 40, and 54, pp. 12 and IS. 


with his right hand extended, holding a sceptre in his left 
hand. Part of an obelisk of the same king bears a small 
relief, but these works merely serve to indicate that there 
was no great change in Assyrian art between the eleventh 
century and the time of the great conqueror Asshurnazirpal 
III (885-850 B.C.), whose palace at Nimrild (Kalah) contained 
great numbers of reliefs which are now in the British Museum. 
They consist either of large figures (about seven feet high) 
in a single row, or of much 


smaller figures forming 
two friezes separated by 
cuneiform inscriptions. 
The relief is throughout 
rather low, but clear and 
well cut. The large fig- 
ures are dignified in their 
quiet postures, and the 
faces, though expression- 
less, are impressive in 
their immobility (Fig. 
20). Details are treated 
with elaborate care; the 
hair and beards, bracelets 
and feathers, borders and 
fringes of robes are 
wrought with as much 
nicety as the soft stone 
admits. The treatment 
of the hair is conven- 
tional, and the beards have alternating rows of curls (for curls 
are undoubtedly intended) and straight hair. Possibly this 
arrangement corresponds to the real fashion of the royal 
court, or it may be an attempt to represent natural locks. 
The eyes are in full front view, though the heads are in 
profile, an error which had been partially overcome in Baby- 
lonia as early as the time of Gudea, but the perspective of the 
shoulders is less incorrect than in early Babylonian work. 
Muscular strength was evidently much admired by the 

Figure 20. — Asshurnazirpal and 
Eunuch. British Museum. 



Assyrians, for their sculptors represent muscles with great 
care and even greater exaggeration. The reliefs are rather 
flat, and deep grooves mark the divisions of the muscles. 
The articulation of knees and elbows is carefully rendered, 
but the long and heavy Assyrian skirt made it less easy for 
the Assyrian sculptor than for the Egyptian or the Greek 
to gain a comprehensive knowledge of the human form. 

The smaller reliefs represent the king and his followers in 
various scenes of war and of the chase. Details are treated 
with the same care observed in the larger series, and the 
variety of posture, the vigor of movement, and the interest 

FiGDBE 21. — Asshurnazirpal Hunting. British Museum. 

of the action are much greater. The development of the 
art of war is shown by a relief that represents the Assyrians 
attacking a fortress with a battering ram. The royal lion 
hunts are depicted in great variety and with wonderful truth 
to nature in many details, especially in the actions and atti- 
tudes of the lions, but the peculiar method of representing 
muscles appears sometimes almost as a conventional system 
of decoration, for instance, in the forelegs of the horses and 
the lions in Figure 21. 

The colossal creatures, half relief and half sculpture in 
the round, which guarded the portals of Asshurnazirpal, are 
immensely impressive in their impassive power. The strength 
of the bull or the lion is combined with the swiftness of the 


eagle and the intelligence of man. An interesting detail in 
these figures is the introduction of a fifth leg, evidently in 
order that the figure, when seen from the side, should not 
appear to be three-legged. The same peculiarity is seen in 
the superb lion from the same palace and in other similar 
works of Assyrian sculpture. 

The Gates of Balawat. — The bronze reliefs from the gates 
of Balawat, now in the British Museum, belong to the time 
of Asshurnazirpal's son and successor Shalmaneser III (860- 
825 B.C.). The gates were of wood, adorned with strips of 
bronze nine inches wide. The figures, wrought in repousse, 
are only 2^ to 3 inches high, but they are admirably designed 
and executed. The scenery represented includes a cirrtilar 
fortification, an arched bridge, mountainous country, and a 
Jake, perhaps Lake Van. In these surroundings are troops on 
the march, captives brought before the king, the performance 
of religious ceremonies, and other scenes of a victorious 
campaign. Too much attention is paid to the details of 
trappings of horses and the like, water is rendered in a very 
conventional manner, the eyes of persons seen from the side 
are represented as if seen from the front, but the figures are 
well designed, the attitudes are lifelike and real, and the 
scenery, though by no means perfect, serves to make the 
action, or rather the story, perfectly clear. On the whole, 
these small reliefs are among the most interesting works of 
Assyrian art. 

Apart from the bronze reliefs of Balawat, the black obelisk 
of Shalmaneser III and the stele of Shamshi-Adad VII (823- 
811 B.C.), both in the British Museum, are almost the only 
monuments of the sculpture of their reigns, and Adad- 
Nirari IV (810-782 B.C.), whose wife was Sammuramat, 
probably the same whom Herodotus calls Semiramis, has 
left us two statues of the god Nabu. These works add little 
to our knowledge of Assyrian art. There are more remains 
from the palace of Tiglathpileser IV (745-727 B.C.). These 
differ from the reliefs of Asshurnazirpal in representing more 
scenery and sometimes in giving slighter proportions to the 
human form; but there is no essential difference in style. 



Palace of Sargon at Kkorsabad. — Reliefs from the palace 
of Sargon II (722-705 b.c.) at Khorsabad (Dur-Sharrukin) 
show a somewhat different style (Fig. 22). The arrangement 
in reliefs representing the king with his courtiers and other 
persons is simple and severe, as in the reliefs of Asshurnazirpal, 
but there is no longer a band of inscription across the figures 
or any part of them. The figures themselves are a little 

more slender than those of 

earlier times, and there is 
less exaggeration of muscles. 
The relief is a trifle higher, 
and consequently the figures 
are a little rounder, and the 
muscles look less like flat 
surfaces marked off one from 
another by grooves. The 
treatment of hair and beard, 
too, though still very con- 
ventional, is less unnatural 
than before. INIoreover, the 
eyes of persons whose heads 
are in profile are no longer 
represented as if seen from 
the front. They are even 
yet not correctly rendered, 
but there has been a no- 
ticeable advance. Scenery 
when introduced is now more 
characteristic than before, 
and in some cases the faces of men represented are dis- 
tinguished by their racial features. These differences 
are all improvements since the time of Asshurnazirpal ; 
but not all the changes are improvements. In spite of 
their greater slenderness, the figures are rather clumsy, 
and the lack of expression in the faces makes a more dis- 
agreeable impression in the higher relief. The effect of these 
figures is heavy, and there is an apparent want of freshness 
not visible in the earlier work. There was a real advance in 

Figure 22. — Relief from the Palace 
of Sargon II. The Louvre, Paris. 


the time between Asshurnazirpal and Sargon, but an ad- 
vance which seems to have brought with it no appreciable 
improvement in the beauty of the sculpture. 

The great winged, man-headed bulls from Sargon's palace, 
impressive as they are, show little progress. Really one of the 
finest works of Sargon's tune is a bronze lion about 16 inches 
long (Fig. 2.3). The large ring which rises from the lion's back 
detracts somewhat from the effect of the work, but no doubt 
facilitated its use as a weight, the purpose for which it was in- 
tended. The Assyrians always excelled in the representation 
of animals, and 
this little lion is a 
The shaggy 
mane, powerful 
jaws, heavy legs, 
and slender body 
are all admirably 
and the work- 
manship is fine 
and delicate. 
The excellence of 
this small work 
gives weight to 
the suggestion 
that the defects of the reliefs from Sargon's palace may be 
due in part to the softness of the alabaster employed. 

Sennacherib. — Under Sennacherib (705-680 B.C.) more 
scenery was introduced in reliefs than ever before and the 
number of persons was multiplied, with the result that there 
is occasionally some confusion in the composition. The 
reliefs are generally arranged in several rows of small figures. 
In representing religious ceremonies, however, the same 
dignified simplicity is adopted which makes the reliefs of 
Asshurnazirpal so impressive. In technical skill the artists 
employed by Sennacherib do not appear to have progressed 
beyond those employed by his father. 

Figure 23. — Weight in the Form of a Bronze 
Lion. The Louvre, Paris. 


Asshurbanipal. — The most ambitious, the most various, 
the most naturaHstic, and in many respects the best of all 
works of Assyrian sculpture are the reliefs from the palace of 
Asshurbanipal (668-626 B.C.), the Sardanapalus of the Greeks, 
grandson of Sennacherib. In these we see the fleet wild ass, 
the swift and powerful hunting dog, and the mighty lion in 
the various attitudes of flight, pursuit, conflict, and death. 
Few artists of any age have succeeded better than those who 
carved these reliefs in reproducing the characteristic motions 

FiGUBE 24. — Wounded Lioness. British Museum. 

of dift'erent animals. The wounded lioness, whose back 
has been broken by an arrow or a spear and who drags her 
hind legs along the ground (Fig. 24) is probably the most 
widely known and most generally admired example of 
Assyrian animal-sculpture, but many others among the reliefs 
of Asshurbanipal merit equal praise, though they may not 
appeal so directly to our sympathies. In the representation 
of human beings also the artists who worked for Asshurbani- 
pal excelled their predecessors. They worked in somewhat 
higher relief, thereby giving their figures more natural forms, 
and they reproduced attitudes with greater truth to nature 


(Fig. 25). They did not, it is true, break with the conven- 
tions which had become rooted in Assyrian art, but their 
work is not that of men who merely continue in a mechanical 
manner the practice of an art which has completely suc- 
cumbed to convention. On the contrary, it is clear that 
Assyrian art was still a living and progressive art. How far 
it might have progressed under favorable circumstances, we 

Figure 25. — Asshurbanipal Drinking in a Garden. British Museum. 

can never know. Perhaps it would never have attained any 
greater height than it reached under Asshurbanipal, for it 
seems to have been employed almost exclusively by the kings, 
and by them almost exclusively for the glorification of their 
own deeds. Such a strictly court art is likely to become dull 
and artificial after a time. But the Assyrian empire fell in 
606 B.C., only twenty years after the death of Asshurbanipal, 
and with it Assyrian art came to an end. Through the mili- 
tary and diplomatic relations of the Assyrians with other 


peoples, the influence of Babylonian and Assyrian art was 
extended in all directions, even to the shores of the Mediter- 
ranean Sea. Its direct influence ceased virtually with the 
fall of the empire, but its indirect influence is felt even to the 
present day, especially in decorative art. 



The Hittites. — The Hittites have long been known through 
somewhat casual mention in the Bible, and inscriptions and 
other monuments discovered in comparatively recent years 
have made it clear that they were a powerful people for cen- 
turies. Hittite monuments have been found at various places 
from Gerger and Malatia on the Euphrates to Smyrna and 
Ephesus on the Aegean Sea and from Eyuk, about fifty miles 
in a direct line from the Black Sea, to Homs, some fifty miles 
south of Aleppo, in Syria. The first appearance of the 
Hittites in history is about 2000 B.C., when they are so power- 
ful as to overthrow the first Babylonian dynasty and capture 
Babylon. They seem at that time to have had settlements 
in southern Syria and on the Egyptian frontier. In the 
fifteenth century B.C. the Egyptians find them in northern 
Syria. In the fourteenth century their capital was at Boghaz 
Keui (the Pteria of Herodotus) in Cappadocia. This was 
the period of their highest power. In the far-reaching 
movement of peoples in the twelfth century the Hittites lost 
ground, probably in great measure on account of the attacks 
of the Phrygians, whose power grew until in the eighth cen- 
tury they ruled a large part of Asia Minor. But Hittite 
power revived in the tenth century, though its chief seats 
were then, apparently, in Cilicia and northern Syria. For a 
long time the Hittites struggled against the Assyrians and 
also the Vannic kings, but they finally succumbed to the 
Assyrians in the eighth century. 

Monuments of Hittite Sculpture. — Monuments of Hittite 
sculpture are for the most part reliefs carved in the native 




rock or in blocks of stone \\'hich formed the lower part of 
walls, though there are a few lions (Fig. 26) and fragments 
of human figures in the round. There are, moreover, small 
bronzes and other objects which are probably Ilittite. No 
remains of sculpture that is certainly Hittite seem to be earlier 
than the time of the first great Hittite kingdom or federation, 
the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C. This is the 
period of the reliefs at Eyuk and most of those at Boghaz 
Keui, including the remarkable series of figures at the neigh- 
boring Yasili Kaya. The sculptures found in Cilicia and 

northern Syria be- 
long to the second 
period of power in 
the tenth, ninth, 
and eighth cen- 

Even the earliest 
known Hittite 
sculpture shows the 
influence of Baby- 
lonian art, probably 
exerted even at that 
time through As- 
syria ; but the cos- 
tumes, the type of 
face, the deities, and the religious rites represented differ from 
those that appear in Babylonian and Assyrian art. The most 
noticeable features of costume are high, pointed hats and 
shoes with turned-up toes — such shoes as are still worn in 
Greece and in several mountainous regions of the East. The 
art of this first period exhibits sincere realism, an honest 
attempt to represent men and beasts as they are, and gods 
as they are believed to be, but there is little refinement of 
technique and little artistic feeling or love of beauty, even in 
the great series of reliefs at Yasili Kaya, in which gods and 
men appear. Some of these sculptures have suffered greatly 
from time and exposure, but apparently their technical 
excellence was never very great. 

Figure 26. — Inscribed Hittite Lion, from 
Marash. Constantinople. 


In the sculpture of the later period the Assyrian influence 
is very marked. Assyrian conventions, for instance, in the 
treatment of the hair, were adopted, the winged disk appears 
as the symbol of deity, and Assyrian motifs are employed ; 
but the figures are lifeless and clumsy, the proportions and 
attitudes unnatural, and the composition ineffective. Evi- 
dently sculptors of little or no ability are here attempting to 
imitate the work of the Assyrians. Hittite inscriptions are 
usually carved in relief, but sometimes merely incised in out- 
line. The characters are hieroglyphic or pictographic, there- 
fore the inscriptions are in a way works of sculpture; but 
as such they are inferior to the larger reliefs. 

In general, the Hittites do not appear to have made any 
original contribution of value to the art of sculpture; but 
they practised the art, albeit somewhat rudely, and were 
doubtless one of the channels through which the culture of the 
East passed into Asia Minor, whence its influence spread to 
Greece ; but as yet it is difficult to determine how great the 
importance of the Hittites was in connecting the East with 
the West or how their art affected that of other peoples. 

Sculpture of Other Peoples of Asia Minor. — The Phrygians, 
Lydians, Lycians, Carians, and other peoples of Asia Minor, — 
most of whom entered the country about the twelfth century 
B.C., — all practised the art of sculpture to some extent, and 
some monuments of their art exist. Among them the remains 
of Phrygian sculpture are perhaps the most numerous and 
striking, but even these are of little real importance. They 
show that the Phrygians, like the Hittites, were under the 
influence of Assyrian art and served as intermediaries between 
the East and the West. This role was later undertaken, so 
far as Asia Minor is concerned, chiefly by the Lydians, whose 
empire included some of the Greek cities of Asia Minor and 
was on terms of friendly intercourse with continental Greece 
in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C. 

The Persians. — The Persian empire began with the over- 
throw of Astyages by Cyrus in 558 B.C. and ended with the 
defeat of Darius Codomannus by Alexander the Great in 
330 B.C. Persian sculpture existed, so far as can be deter- 


mined at present, solely for the glorification of the kings; 
it therefore begins and ends with the Aehaemenid power, 
except in so far as it lived on in the Buddhistic art of north- 
western India and was re\'ived and combined with Roman 
elements under the Sassanide kings of Persia in the third 
century a.d. and thereafter. Before the Persians the Medes 
had ruled for a brief period over the peoples of the Iranian 
plateau and the neighboring regions, and for centuries the 
Elamite kingdom, with its capital at Susa, was powerful and 
flourishing. At one time, not far from 2000 B.C., it had even 
ruled over a large part of Babylonia ; but it was overthrown 
in the se\'enth centin-y B.C. l>y the Assyrians under Asshur- 
banipal. That the Elamites practised sculpture we know, 
but their art is known to us only through a few rock-cut 
reliefs, which bear a close resemblance, so far as their condi- 
tion enables us to judge, to the Babylonian scidpture of the 
time. Of Median sculpture no monuments are known. It 
may be that some of the qualities of Persian art are due to 
the survival of Elamite traditions, but that is doubtful. 

Persian Sculpture chiefly Relief Work. — The Persian 
empire inherited, or adopted, the ci\'ilization of the Assyrians 
and the Babylonians, and Persian art is for the most part an 
adaptation of Assyro-Babylonian art, though there are 
important differences, especially in architecture. Sculpture 
seems to have been confined, apart from the man-bulls beside, 
doors and certain capitals, to relief work. The earliest known 
example is a relief from Pasargadae which represents Cyrus, 
the founder of the empire. Pie wears an Assyrian costume, 
stiff and without folds, a fantastic Egyptian head-dress 
(originally that of the god Thoth), and four great wings. 
The technical treatment is strictly Assyrian, with no trace of 
anything new or of Greek influence. In the rock-cut sculp- 
tures of Darius at Behisttin and in the reliefs of the tombs 
near Persepolis the garments have folds, stiff, to be sure, but 
very like the Greek work of the latter part of the sixth cen- 
tury. Without doubt this innovation is due to Greek influ- 
ence. Such influence, however, is confined to details and has 
little or no effect upon the general style. 


Monuments of Persian Sciilpture; its Qualities. — The 
chief monuments of Persian sculpture are rehefs cut in the 
rock to decorate the tombs of the kings near Persepohs, 
the similar relief which illustrates the inscription of Darius 
the Great at Behistun, and the reliefs from the palaces of 
Xerxes and Artaxerxes at Persepolis and Susa. The style is 
throughout much the same, — a style of magnificence, rather 

Figure 27. — Archers. Persian Relief of Glazed Tile. The Lnuvre, Paris. 

than reality. The relief is somewhat rounder than that of 
Assyrian sculpture, and the motives are more limited. In the 
illustration of the inscription at Behistian there is an obvious 
intention to give coarse and mean features to the rebel leaders 
who stand, fastened together by a rope about their necks, 
before Darius, but in general Persian art makes hardly an 
attempt to distinguish even different types of men. The 
king is represented accompanied by attendants holding 



parasol and fan over his head, while the god Ahuramazda 
floats above him, or he is seated on his throne which his 
servants or tributary nations hold up, or he is in conflict, 
always victorious, with fabulous monsters. Everywhere 
the scene is merely typical, not a real adventure, such as the 
Assyrian kings used for the decoration of their palace walls. 
And when the king himself does not appear, there are pro- 
cessions of guards or of 
conquered peoples bringing 
tribute, and these also are 
without definite character- 
ization except in the manner 
of their clothing. 

The reliefs in the Persian 
palaces did not cover entire 
walls, in the Egyptian fash- 
ion, or the lower part of 
entire walls, after the As- 
syrian manner, but were in 
the thickness of the walls at 
the sides of doors, or deco- 
rated the sides of stairways. 
At Susa there were many re- 
liefs of glazed, colored tiles 
(Fig. 27), and such reliefs 
may have served sometimes 
as friezes. All Persian re- 
liefs were probably colored, 
for Persian art throughout aimed at gorgeousness and bril- 
liancy of effect. A favorite motive was the combat between 
a lion and a bull, and it is used with great success from a 
decorative point of view ; but both lion and bull are conven- 
tionalized. They are not the living animals of Assyrian art, 
but are as artificial as unicorns or griflfins, both of which are 
employed by the Persians in their reliefs of glazed tiles. 

Persian sculpture was employed almost exclusively as an 
adjunct to architecture (for the rock-cut tombs affect archi- 
tectural forms) and it was employed with skill, not merely to 

Figure 28. — Persian Bull-Capital 
The Louvre, Paris. 


color the walls, but to mark and emphasize parts of architec- 
tural significance. This was a real innovation, a great step in 
advance, whether due to Greek influence or to the genius of the 
Persians themselves. Greek influence is possible, for Greek 
art was already growing great in the sixth century, and Greeks 
were already subjects of the Persians, but they dwelt near 
and beyond the western borders of the empire, and it is 
hardly likely that their influence would be strong in distant 
Persia itself. The most striking use of sculpture in archi- 
tectural decoration is seen in the great bull-capitals of Susa 
and Persepolis (Fig. 28) . They are brilliantly executed, full 
of life, and yet, with all their natural vigor, sufficiently con- 
ventional to serve as harmonious parts of an architectural 

The Phoenicians. — The Phoenicians occupied a narrow 
strip of land in Syria, between the Lebanon range of moun- 
tains and the sea, not far from Babylonia toward the east or 
from Egypt toward the south. In language and racial quali- 
ties they were related to the Hebrews, but their religion 
never became monotheistic and always retained some primi- 
tive and savage traits. Their cities were separated by pro- 
jecting headlands, so that they were prevented from uniting 
and forming one nation, but existed side by side as indepen- 
dent communities. We possess no monuments of art which 
can be attributed with any certainty to the Phoenicians in 
the earliest stages of their history. 

At the time of the Egyptian Empire, in the sixteenth cen- 
tury B.C., they became vassals of the Egyptians ; they there- 
fore received, in exchange for the tribute they paid, the pro- 
tection of the greatest military power of the age, and also free 
entry into Egyptian ports. Sidon was at this time the most 
important Phoenician city, and under the supremacy of 
Sidon, which lasted until the rise of Tyre, the Phoenicians 
extended their trade to Cyprus, all the coasts and islands of 
the Aegean, Greece, the coasts of the Black Sea, Sicily, Italy, 
and northern Africa. During this time they were important 
as intermediaries between the East and Europe, especially 
toward the end of the period, when the naval power of Crete 


had disappeared and the "Mycenaean" civilization was fall- 
ing in ruin. But this long period, like the time that pre- 
ceded it, has left no monuments of plastic art, unless some 
rude terra-cottas, some engraved seals, and a few other 
objects of no great interest and, in part at least, of uncertain 
origin, are to be classed as early Phoenician sculpture. 

About 1000 or 900 B.C., after the capture of Sidon by the 
Philistines, Tyre became the chief Phoenician city. About 
800 B.C. Carthage was founded, and with it the Phoenician 
power in the West, which endured until it was overthrown 
by the Romans and finally destroyed in 146 B.C. During 
this period, when Tyre and then Carthage were powerful, the 
Phoenicians extended their trade to all the coasts of the Medi- 
terranean Sea and far beyond, though in the later centuries 
they had to compete with the Etruscans and the Greeks. 

Phoenician ^irt and iff: Qtialities. — It is chiefly as traders 
that the Phoenicians are important in the history of art. 
They exchanged the wares of Egyptians, Babylonians, 
Assyrians, and Greeks each for the other, and carried them 
all to the peoples of the West. They also made various 
things for export, but statues \\'erc not among them. Their 
sculptiu'e is best studied in small bronzes, terra-cottas, ivories, 
and figures (amulets, scarabs, etc.) of the glazed ware called 
Egyptian faience, though a considerable number of anthro- 
poid sarcophagi and a few examples of relief sculpture in 
stone exist. Few of these objects, whatcA'er their size or 
material, are of any great interest. Some of them are merely 
poor imitations of Egyptian work, while others exhibit 
Assyrian types, and many show a mixture of Egyptian and 
Assyro-Babylonian motives. The degree of Egyptian or 
Assyrian influence depends upon the date and the relative 
ascendancy of Egypt or Assyria at the time. Of all the works 
of art ascribed to the Phoenicians the most interesting are the 
■paterae, or shallow bowls, of silver or other metal, which 
have been found at widely separated places, the finest at 
Palestrina (Praeneste) in Italy. These are decorated in 
relief with concentric rings of figures which sometimes have 
some definite significance and sometimes are purely decora- 


tive. The quality of workmanship also varies greatly, some 
of the paterae being finely wrought, while others were evi- 
dently turned out for the trade, with no care for accuracy or 
refinement of work. 

Phoenician work in general lacks vigor, precision, and 
delicacy of technique ; it can therefore be distinguished from 
Egyptian and Assyrian work, even when it is consistent in 
style. Very often, however, it is characterized by confusion 
of misunderstood Egyptian and Assyrian motives, and some- 
times the combination of disk and crescent, or an inscription 
in Phoenician characters, serves to identify an object as 
Phoenician, even when it is found in some distant region. 

The Phoenician, or Punic, art of Carthage was chiefly 
under the influence of Egypt, which yielded gradually to 
that of Greece. After the Roman conquest Phoenician art, 
in Syria as in Africa, was Roman (or Graeco-Roman) art, 
with no distinctive Phoenician characteristics. 

Cypriote Art. — The art of Cyprus may be conveniently 
discussed in connection with that of Phoenicia, because parts 
of the island were inhabited by Phoenicians. But other 
parts were settled by Greeks, and the original inhabitants 
were neither Greeks nor Phoenicians. In the earliest times 
Cyprus may have influenced its neighbors on the mainland 
quite as much as it was influenced by them. But the remains 
of early Cypriote sculpture, if sculpture it may be called, 
are virtually limited to ornaments modelled in relief or in the 
round upon vases, tripods, and other utensils, and to terra- 
cotta figures of men, women, and beasts, especially oxen. 
Most of these are rude and coarse, but in them the rudiments 
of a characteristic style appear, traces of which are visible 
in the inferior and strictly native terra-cottas even until the 
Ptolemaic period. 

Sculpture in stone hardly begins in Cyprus before the 
Assyrian conquests in the eighth and seventh centuries. 
Under Assyrian influence fuller forms, more definite and for- 
cible poses appear than had been attained in the earlier 
figures, drapery is elaborated, and the types of Cypriote 
armor are established. The long, narrow proportions and the 



thinness from front to back of Cypriote stone statues is 
doubtless due chiefly to the fact that the limestone of which 
they are made splits naturally into rather thin slabs. The 
sharpness of line and the imperfect finish of surface are 
due in part to the softness of the stone, which seems to 
have been cut sometimes with a knife, not wrought with 
a chisel. 

Assyrian and Egyptian Influence. — The influence of 
Assyrian art upon Cypriote sculpture was great, and would 

Figure 29. 

-Cypriote Sarcophagus ; about 550-500 B.C. Metropolitan 
Museum, New York. 

without doubt have been greater and more persistent if the 
opening of Egypt to Greek trade in the twenty-sixth dynasty 
had not brought Cyprus under the influence of Egypt. 
Henceforth clay figures are pressed in moulds, not (with 
some exceptions) modelled by hand as before, and stone 
figures with stiff pose, smooth drapery, and head-dresses 
and features after Egyptian models become common 
and continue throughout the latter part of the seventh 
and the entire sixth century, though Hellenic influence 


shows itself before the sixth century closes. Cyprus, how- 
ever, became a part of the Persian Empire in the sixth cen- 
tury, and was therefore cut off 
from close and continuous in- 
tercourse with the centres of 
Greek art; moreover, parts of 
the island were occupied by 
Phoenicians, whose natural 
affiliations were rather with 
Syria and the East than with 
Greece. At present the known 
monuments of Cypriote sculp- 
ture come chiefly from the 
Phoenician sites. In these the 
Greek influence is clearly seen, 
but does not overcome the 
stiffness of pose or the heavi- 
ness of feature to be expected 
in works by artists whose ideals 
were formed by Assyrian and 
late Egyptian works. Cypriote 
sculpture of the fifth century is 
a peculiar hybrid, not without 
interest, but almost without 
charm, lacking the vigorous 
earnestness of Assyrian reliefs, 
the exquisite finish of the best 
Egyptian work, and the truth 
to nature and love of beauty 
exhibited by Greek sculpture. 

Decadence under Greek In- 
fluence. In the fourth cen- 
tury Cyprus came more and 
more into the general stream 
of Hellenic culture, which, after 
Alexander's conquests, spread 
over all the known world as far east as India. Sculpture 
in the nati^'e style deteriorated, and its debasement was 

Figdbe30. — Cypriote Statue ; 
about 500 B.C. Metropolitan 
Museum, New Yorlc. 


certainly not retarded by the increased use of red paint which 
partially hid the faults of the work. Greek art was more and 
more imitated, until the work of the Cypriote sculptors was 
nothing more than provincial, and for the most part very 
inferior, Greek or Hellenistic sculpture. 



The Hellenes and the Earlier Inhabitant of Greece. — The 
history of Greek sculpture properly so called begins hardly, 
if at all, before the seventh century B.C., when the Hellenes, 
the race which we call Greek, had established more or less 
well-ordered social life in their numerous independent com- 
munities and began to develop the arts. This race began 
to enter Greece at least as early as the eleventh century, 
but for many centuries before that time the country had been 
occupied by people of another race or other races. A 
powerful, rich, and luxurious civilization had grown up, 
flourished, and decayed. When the Hellenes entered Greece, 
they found fortified towns and palaces to be conquered be- 
fore they could call the country their own. The process of 
conquest was undoubtedly a long one, and when it was 
ended the conquered people were not all killed or driven 
away, but many must have remained as the slaves, serfs, 
or fellow-citizens of the conquerors. The Greeks of the 
historical period were therefore a more or less mixed race 
ahd inherited some of their qualities from the earlier in- 
habitants of the country. Moreover, stone walls, objects 
of metal, and sculptured stones wrought by the earlier folk 
were still in existence, so that the Greeks, when they began 
to cultivate the arts, had before them various objects which 
they could imitate. Possibly the technical traditions of 
the earlier time may even have been preserved in some meas- 
ure. The art of Prehellenic Greece is therefore of interest 
to the historian of Greek art, and many of its products are in- 
teresting and beautiful in themselves. The existing monu- 




ments of Prehellenic sculpture are, however, few in com- 
parison with those of architecture, painting, gem-cutting, 
metal work, and pottery. 

Prehellenic Sculpture. — The earliest and most important 
seat of civilization in Greek lands was Crete, where the arts 
of peace began to develop even before 3000 B.C. Some very 
primitive statuettes found in the Cyclades and in Crete 
were made, apparently, not much later than 3000 B.C., but 
for many centuries after this time no definite progress in the 

art of sculpture 
is traced. Prob- 
ably such sculp- 
ture as existed 
was for the most 
part either 
carved in wood 
or modelled in 
stucco and has 
Even when the 
Cretan (or 
Minoan, as it is 
often called) 
civilization was 
at its height, 
sculpture in 
stone and bronze was little practised, but fragmentary 
reliefs of stucco (gesso duro) and remarkable small works 
of metal, as well as terra-cotta statuettes and carved stone 
vases, show that technical skill and the ability to conceive 
and execute works which at least partake of the nature 
of sculpture were not lacking. In general, the art of this 
long period, after the rude beginnings are past, is natural- 
istic, rather than conventional, and shows keen observation 
of nature, but only of externals; there is no evidence of 
careful study of anatomy, for instance, but great ease and 
liveliness in the representation of men and beasts. A fine 
though fragmentary example of Cretan sculpture in stucco 

Figure 31. — Fragment of Stucco Relief. 
Museum at Candia. {Annual of the British School 
at Athens, VII, p. 17.) 


(Fig. 31) shows the arm and part of the body of a man. 
It comes from the palace at Cnossus, where it formed part 

Figure 32. — Harvest Vase. Museum at Candia. {Maraghianis, Antiguites 
cretoises, I, PI. xxii.) 

of a series of wall decorations. Here the muscles are ad- 
mirably represented, the pose is full of life, and only the 
oddly elongated 
thumb betrays 
a certain care- 
lessness on the 
part of the art- 
ist. This frag- 
ment and many 
others, among 
them a striking 
and powerful 
bull's head, 
show that the 
Cretan sculp- 
tors in stucco 
were producing 
works of great 
merit as early, 
at least, as 1500 
B.C. The carved 

steatite vases OI figure 33. — Lions of Mycenae. (Brunn-Bruckmann, 

about the same Dmkmaier, Pi. i5i.) 



period are quite as remarkable as the stucco reliefs. 
The most famous of these is the so-called harvest vase, 
from Hagia Triada, near Phaestus (Fig. 32). Only the 
upper part of the vase is preserved. On this the upper 
parts of a large number of men engaged, apparently, in 
celebrating a harvest festival are represented with astonish- 
ing liveliness. Stone reliefs found over the shaft graves dis- 
covered by Dr. Schliemann at Mycenae are far ruder than 
the works just mentioned, though they are not earlier in date 
and may be somewhat later. Their rudeness may be due in 
part to the fact that the centre of culture was in Crete, 
and Mycenae, in continental Greece, had not attained to 
such excellence in art as Cnossus and Phaestus, and in part 
to the fact that the stone reliefs were once covered with a 





Figure 34. — Gold Cups from Vaphio. National Museum, Athens. 

coating of stucco in which the details were executed. The 
great lions (or lionesses) over the gate at Mycenae (Fig. 33) 
certainly pro\'e that the Mycenaean sculptors were able to 
produce excellent and impressive works in stone. 

Metal Work, Ivories, and Seals. — The skill of the Prehel- 
lenic metal-workers is seen in a splendid bull's head from 
Mycenae and two gold cups from Vaphio, near Sparta (Fig. 
34). Probably these were actually made in Crete and 
exported to continental Greece, but numerous ornaments 
and masks of gold, found at Mycenae, were undoubtedly 
made on the spot. On one of the cups from Vaphio the 
capture of wild cattle is represented in a most lively manner, 
though some of the postures of the animals are not correct, 
and on the other tame cattle appear. These cups, with 
their reliefs in repousse, are really miniature works of sculp- 


ture. They prove that the appreciation of the sculptor's 
art was keen, since it was applied to household treasures of 
such value. The objects that have been mentioned are 
only a small part of those which have been discovered, but 
they serve to show the quality of the Prehellenic sculpture 
of Greece. A considerable number of small figures and 
reliefs of ivory and hundreds of engraved gems or seals show 
that carving in miniature was a much appreciated and highly 
developed art. A remarkable fine example of ivory carving 
is a statuette of a snake-goddess in 
the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston 
(Fig. 35). The accessories are of 
gold. Real sculpture in the round, 
however, and even relief sculpture of 
large size in stone, seems to have 
been little practised, though the 
technical ability necessary for its pro- 
duction was apparently not lacking. 
As the Prehellenic civilization decayed 
and succumbed gradually to the at- 
tacks of the invading Hellenes, its art 
deteriorated and finally came to an 
end, or, if it continued to exist, it was 
rather as an obscure influence than 
as a living art. Survivals of Prehel- 
lenic decorative motives and of Prehel- 
lenic taste have been observed in works 
of Greek art, especially in the deco- 
ration of vases made in the Greek cities of Asia Minor, but 
Prehellenic sculpture, which was, as we have seen, never the 
favorite or most fully developed art of the races who dwelt 
in and around the great palaces in Crete, at Cnossus and 
Phaestus, or the mighty fortresses of continental Greece, at 
Tiryns, Mycenae, and elsewhere, disappeared with the power 
of those races. If it exerted any influence upon Greek sculp- 
ture, it was only through such isolated monuments (for 
instance, the lions at Mycenae) as remained above ground and 
visible to later ages and such as might come to light by 

Figure 35. — Statu- 
ette of Gold and Ivory. 
Museum of Fine Arts, 


chance. These works might serve to inspire the Greeks 
with the wish to carve figures of stone, — indeed it is possible 
that some tradition of stone-ca^^'ing may hare been handed 
down through the centuries that precede the known begin- 
nings of Greek sculpture, — but beyond this the earliest 
Greek sculptors appear to have owed nothing to their 
predecessors in the land. 

The Earliest Greek Sculpture.— The earliest Greek 
statues now existing are somewhat less primitive than 
might be expected. They do not look like the first efforts 
of an uncultured people. It has therefore been assumed 
that the earliest statues were all of wood and that these 
have completely disappeared. Such an assumption seems 
to ignore the fact that the Greeks of the seventh century 
were not an isolated folk, depending entirely upon them- 
selves for enlightenment and progress of all kinds. They 
were, and had been for some time, engaged in trade with 
the Egyptians, the Phoenicians, and the various peoples of 
Asia Minor, and we have seen that these peoples, especially 
the Egyptians, had developed the art of sculpture many 
centuries before the beginnings of Greek civilization. We 
know that even in later times the gods were represented 
at certain shrines in Greece, not by statues, but by symbols 
and unhewn stones or by pillars or beams clothed in real 
garments. It is perhaps reasonable to suppose that such 
symbols of the bodily presence of the deity were more usual 
in primitive times, and that statues, when the desire for 
them arose, were made of various materials, wood, stone, 
or metal, as the convenience or taste of the sculptor and his 
patrons dictated. The style of the earliest statues might 
then very probably be influenced by the art of foreign nations, 
especially of the Egyptians. 

Periods of Greek Sculpture. — The history of Greek sculp- 
ture may be divided chronologically into four periods : 
(1) The archaic period, from the beginning, about 600 B.C., 
to the great Persian invasion, 480; (2) the fifth century; 
(3) the fourth century; (4) the Hellenistic period, after 
the conquests of Alexander had spread Greek civilization 


over the known world. In the first period certain types of 
statues were developed and technical ability in the carving 
of marble and the casting of bronze was acquired; in the 
second period the stiffness and awkwardness of early art 
was overcome, further technical skill was gained, and the 
most admirable expression of physical beauty and typical 
perfection was achieved; in the third period pathos or 
individual feeling and emotion led to a partial abandonment 
of the ideal of perfection ; and in the fourth period the study 
of anatomy, the desire to express emotion, and the influence 
of Rome and of the East led to exaggeration of muscular 
detail and to contorted postures in some instances, to osten- 
tation or to excessive realism in others. In the end, Hellen- 
istic art developed into Roman art in the West and Byzan- 
tine art in the East. 

The Archaic Period 

Types of Early Statues. — Three main types are exhibited 
by the earliest Greek statues : a nude, standing male figure ; 
a draped, standing figure, usually female; and a draped, 
seated figure, which may be either male or female. In all 
of these types the "law of frontality," which we noticed in 
Egyptian sculpture (page 10), is observed. The head is 
always erect, and turns neither to right nor left. 

The Standing Nude Type. — The standing male figures 
resemble in posture the standing Egyptian kings or the Sheik 
el Beled (page 5). The left foot is advanced, but the weight 
is borne equally by both feet, and the hands of the earher 
examples hang straight down at the sides, though in the later 
statues there is some variety in the position of the hands. 
The earliest of these figures now existing may belong to the 
beginning of the sixth century, but the type remained in 
vogue for many years. Some examples of the type are of 
rude workmanship, others exhibit no little skill and even 
delicacy in execution. In some the surfaces are more 
rounding than is natural, in others it seems as if the sculptor 
had tried to make the surfaces as flat as possible. Such 



differences may be due in part to 
difference of date, in part to dif- 
ference of "school" (that is, to 
local taste), and in part to the 
individual preference of the sculp- 
tor, which may sometimes have 
been affected by the shape or 
cleavage of the block from which 
t he sta tue was to be carvedj In ^ 
general, however, it is clear that I 
there was a great advance in tech^ 
nical skill and in truth to nature 
during the prevalence of the type. 
TheTater examples, which belong 
(to the earlier part of the fifth cen-; 
^ury, are already admirable works,' i 
One~bf the best, arid byTTOTneans 
among the most primitive, of the 
earlier examples, is the "Apollo 
of Tenea" (Fig. 36), found at 
Tenea, near Corinth, and now in 1 
the Glyptothek at Munich. This 1 
may be dated in the latter part ' 
of the sixth century B.C. In pos- 
ture and in the arrangement of 
the long hair in a heaAy mass at 
the back of the neck it is merely 
an example of jthe type^ but in \ 
execution im5 in the careful ren- \ 
Idering of details, especially oLthe — J 
knees, it is unusually fine., There 
is,~IcK)7"in:TheTace the evidence 
of an attempt on the part of the 
sculptor to give his work the ap- 
pearance of life by raising the 
The expression achieved — the so- 
called archaic or Aeginetan smile — is not impressive, 
but it shows the artist's intention. Figures of this type 

Figure 36. — 
Tenea. Munich 
Bruckmann, 1.) 

Apollo of 

corners of the mouth. 


were formerly, on account of their nudity and for other 
reasons, supposed to represent Apollo, and the type is 
still called the "Apollo type"; it is, however, certain 
that many of these statues were set up to commemo- 
rate athletic victories and represented no god, but human 
victors. It is from this type that the later nude statues, 
both of gods and men, were developed. It may well 
be that the Greeks borrowed it in the first place from 
Egypt, but they transformed it at once by making it entirely 
nude, and then proceeded to give it variety and animation 
such as is unknown in Egyptian art. 

The Standing Draped Type: "^^Qne&P^e-raest^i^kaitive' 
examples of the standing, draped, female type was found at 
Delos and is now in Athens. An inscription carved on its 
left side informs us that it was dedicated to Artemis by a 
woman named Nicandra, from Naxos, and the forms of the 
letters indicate a date early in the sixth century. The 
statue is a long, flat slab of marble, about twice as wide as it 
is thick. Upright cylinders (now broken) at the sides rep- 
resent the arms, and two formless projections near the 
b&ttom, where the stone suddenly becomes thicker, are the 
feet. The breasts are hardly indicated by a slight swelling. 
The features are now nearly obliterated. The hair falls 
outward from the head, almost in the form of the Egyptian 
klaft, and continues in well-marked locks over the shoulders. 
There is little about this figure to remind one of a living being. 
Its flat surfaces are probably due to the fact that the slab 
as it came from the quarry had nearly its present form, which 
the sculptor was unable to change materially. Another 
figure, the so-called Hera of Samos, now in the Louvre, was 
dedicated, as its inscription states, to Hera by a certain 
Cheramyes. The letters indicate a date about the middle 
of the sixth century. The shape of this figure is quite as 
remarkable as that of the statue dedicated by Nicandra, 
but it is very different, cylindrical, not flat. The folds of 
the drapery are represented by fine, parallel lines. Other 
statues seem to show that the roundness of form and the 
peculiar manner of treating drapery were features of the 



Samian style of art. Possibly the roundness resulted from 
the habit of cutting off equally the four edges of a square 
block of marble. It was in making such figures as these — 
too flat or too cylindrical, with the folds of drapery not 
marked at all or marked by an excessive number of parallel 
engraved lines ^- that the Greek artists began to practise 
the representation of the draped human form. 

The Seated Draped Type. — The seated draped type may 
perhaps have been borrowed from the Egyptian type of 

the seated Pharaoh (page 62), 
which it resembles very closely. 
It is, however, a natural type, 
and may therefore have arisen 
spontaneously among the 
Greeks. Several good exam- 
ples of it, dating approximately 
from the middle of the sixth 
century, were found at Bran- 
chidae, near Miletus, beside the 
sacred road that led from the 
temple of Apollo to the sea 
(Fig. 37). They are now 
in the British Museum. The 
statues are heavy, almost 
clumsy, and present little or 
no appearance of life. The 
drapery of the different fig- 
ures is not exactly alike, but 
it is all treated with excessive flatness, and the folds are 
distressing in their regularity. These defects were probably 
less noticeable when the statues were enlivened with color. 

The three types described above are substantially the 
same as those employed by the Egyptians ; and among the 
early Greeks, as in Egypt, these types and their derivatives 
were virtually the only types of statues employed as in- 
dependent works of substantive sculpture, as distinguished 
from decorative sculpture which naturally, whether it be 
in the round or in relief, admits, and even demands, much 

Figure 37. — Seated Figure 
from Branohidae. British Mu- 
seum. (Brunn-Bruckmann, 142.) 


greater variety. These three types were invented, or 
adopted, at an early date, and were in current use before 
the middle of the sixth century B.C. The development of 
decorative sculpture was also well under way at this time. 
The two classes of sculpture develop side by side, each 
exerting a strong influence upon the other. The art of 
painting also influenced that of sculpture, especially when 
employed in decoration. 

Ionic and Doric Art. — The Ionic Greeks on the coast of Asia 
Minor possessed fertile territory and carried on a profitable 
trade with the inhabitants of the interior, from whom they 
acquired wealth and a taste for luxury. The Doric Greeks 
of the Peloponnesus occupied a relatively poor country and 
had little opportunity to enrich themselves by trade; they 
were, moreover, in constant danger of attack from the people 
they had conquered and held in subjection. These conditions 
are to some extent reflected in the archaic sculpture of lonians 
and Dorians. Ionic sculpture tends toward softness, rounded 
forms, elaborate drapery, and an appearance of richness, 
while Doric sculpture exhibits more athletic forms and, on 
the whole, more nude male figures, with less elegance and 
splendor. The early Greek artists, however, were by no 
means always employed in their own homes, but Dorians 
worked for lonians and vice versa, and therefore the dis- 
tinction between Doric and Ionic art should not be too much 

Chian Sculpture. — The statues from the sacred way at 
Branchidae (page 62) may serve as examples of early Mile- 
sian sculpture, and early Samian art is represented by the 
so-called Hera (page 61).^ The primitive statue dedicated 
by Nicandra of Naxos (page 61) was probably made by a 
Naxian sculptor. The island of Chios was an important 
centre of art in the sixth century. The earliest Chian 
sculptor whose name is certainly known is Mikkiades, 
whose son, Archermus, and grandsons, Bupalus and Athenis, 

1 Rhoecus and Theodoras of Samos are said to have been the first to 
cast statues of bronze. They probably introduced from Egypt the method 
of casting statues hollow a little before the middle of the sixth century. 
Theodoras and Telecles were said to be sons of Rhoecus. 



were also sculptors. The last named lived about 540 B.C. 
Of Mikkiades we know nothing except that he was a sculp- 
tor, but Archermus is said to have been the first to represent 
Victory with wings. A somewhat fragmentary statue found 
at Delos represents a winged figure in rapid motion, and an 
inscription which probably belongs with it mentions the 
names of Mikkiades and Archermus. The execution of 
details, especially of the hair, of this 
figure is Very careful. Unfortunately 
the wings which once rose from the 
shoulders are gone, as are also the 
smaller wings which were undoubt- 
edly attached to the ankles, but 
these details of this type are known 
from small bronzes, several of which 
are preserved. The works of the 
early Chian artists were apparently 
much prized, and a series of draped 
female figures, found chiefly at Delos 
and Athens, is ascribed to the Chian 
school (Fig. 38) . These figures repre- 
sent young women, richly clad, and 
holding in one hand, which is out- 
stretched, a flower or some other at- 
tribute, while the other hand holds 
up a corner of the garment. They 
are all somewhat fragmentary, but 
they show how the school passed 
from inventiveness joined with 
careful execution to an over-elaborate conventionalism. 
These works have a certain beauty, and the artists were 
evidently carefully trained, but before the end of the sixth 
century they seem to have lost all originality. The accuracy 
and delicacy of their work exerted, however, a very good 
influence upon the artists of other places, especially of Athens, 
where Chian artists were employed in the second half of the 
sixth century. 
Archaic Reliefs. — The remains of the reliefs which once 

Figure 38. — Draped 
Figure of the Chian School. 
Acropolis Museum, 
Athens. (Brunn-Bruck- 

mann, 458.) 


adorned the columns of the temple of Artemis at Ephesus, 
erected about the middle of the sixth century B.C., exhibit 
figures with full and rounding forms. The work is fine, but 
there is a lack of vigor, and no such delicacy of technique 
as is seen in the best Chian figures. The frieze and metopes 
of the temple at Assos, of about the same date, show less 
refined technique, but greater vigor. Numerous works in 
relief show the general tendency of Ionic art toward elegance 
and sumptuousness. Among these are the decorations of 
several Lycian tombs, the best known of which is the so- 
called Harpy Tomb, now in the British Museum. An es- 
pecially interesting example is found in the frieze of the 

Figure 39. — Pediment Group from the Treasury of the Siphnians. Delphi. 

treasury of the Siphnians (formerly ascribed to the Cnidians) 
at Delphi. This was a small building, nearly square. At 
the front the entablature was supported by two figures of 
maidens. Above the architrave the building was encircled 
by a frieze representing a battle of Homeric heroes in the 
presence of seated divinities, the battle of the gods and the 
giants, the carrying off of the daughters of Leucippus, and 
a fourth scene in which chariots and horses occur. In the 
pediment Apollo and Heracles are struggling for the sacred 
tripod. This building was erected near the end of the sixth 
century and its sculptures show Ionic art as it was developed 
at that time. The work (Fig. 39) is not lacking in vigor; 
the details of hair and garments are carefully and finely 
wrought, the action is well portrayed. When the sculptures 



were further enriched with the original colors, the effect 
must have been brilliant and impressive. Such a building 
as this, with its rich adornrnent, shows that the frieze of 
the Parthenon and the caryatids of the Erechtheum were 
not without predecessors. 

Ionic Influence in Doric Cities. — Stlinus, in Sicily, a 
colony of Megara, and therefore Dorian, was a flourishing 

city from its foundation, in 
628 B.C., until it was de- 
stroyed by the Carthaginians 
in 409 B.C. Four sets of 
metopes from Selinuntine 
temples have come down to 
us in more or less fragmen- 
tary condition. The two 
earliest show that the sculp- 
tors of a time not long after 
the foundation of the colony 
tried earnestly to produce 
worthy, expressive, and nat- 
ural Horks. The sculptor 
of the metopes of the temple 
of Apollo (temple C), who at- 
tempted, among other things, 
to represent in relief a chariot 
with four horses and a driver, 
seen from the front, was evi- 
dently a man of ambition 
and originality. His work 
shows vigor and power, in 
spite of the imperfect exe- 
cution, the excessive rotundity of form, the conventional 
attitudes, and the over-elaboration of details. Some qual- 
ities of Ionic art are present, though refinement is lacking. 
The sculptor may have been an Ionian or a Dorian trained 
in Ionic methods. A similar mixture of Doric and Ionic 
traits is seen in the somewhat fragmentary sculptures from 
the pediment of a temple in the Doric colony of Corcyra 

Figure 40. — Figures from an Archaic. 
Temple. Corcyra (Corfu). 


(Fig. 40). The third series of metopes from Selinus repre- 
sented t]je battle of the gods and the giants. Here too the 
influence of Ionic art is seen, though the nearest parallel 
is a relief from the pediment of the treasury of the Megarians 
at Olympia, in which the same contest is represented. At 
the time when these reliefs were made, toward the end of 
the sixth century, Ionic art was highly developed, and its 
influence was very strong, even in Doric communities; it 
was predominant in Asia Minor, the islands of the Aegean, 
Northern Greece, and Boeotia. 

Peloponnesian Sculpture. — Sculpture was also much prac- 
tised in the Peloponnese during the archaic period. Ac- 
cording to tradition the art was introduced chiefly from Crete. 
At any rate, Dipoenus and Scyllis, of Crete, who worked 
in marble, wood, ebony, and perhaps bronze, had among 
their pupils Theocles, Dontas (or Medon), and Doryclidas, 
whose works at Sparta were of cedar-wood or ivory inlaid 
or incrusted with gold, and Tectaeus and Angelion, whose 
pupil Callon, of Aegina, was a wood-carver and bronze 
worker. Smilis, of Aegina, was another famous artist, who 
was said to have been a contemporary of the mythical Cretan 
(or Athenian) Daedalus. At Tegea there was a gilded 
wooden statue by a Cretan named Chirisophus. A native 
Spartan, Gitiadas, was a worker of bronze, but. the throne i 
of Apollo, at Amyclae, in Laconia, was made by Bathycles, 
of Magnesia, an artist called in from Asia Minor. The- 
Argive sculptor Polymedes, of about the middle of the sixth 
century, is known by a clumsy nude statue found at Delphi. 
Hageladas, of Argos, who is said, though probably without 
much reason, to have been the teacher of the three greatest 
sculptors of the fifth century, Myron, Phidias, and Poly- 
clitus, belongs to the very end of the sixth century and, 
probably, to the early part of the century following. He 
worked chiefly in bronze. Callon of Elis worked later than 
496 B.C., and Canachus, of Sicyon, belongs to about the 
same time or somewhat earlier. Canachus was famous for 
the technical excellence of his work. His bronze statue of 
Apollo, in the temple at Branchidae, represented the god, 



nude, holding a deer in his hand. The deer was so balanced 
that a push caused it to rock in such a way that a thread 
could be drawn under its feet. The appearance of the 
statue is known from late reliefs and small bronzes, which 
do not, however, reproduce all details. The chief merit of 
the work ^^-as probably its fine execution. In this respect a 

bronze statuette from Piombino 
(Fig. 41), now in the Louvre, gives 
us perhaps the best idea of the 
work of Canachus, though the hair 
of his statue at Branchidae was so 
arranged that part of it fell in 
locks over the shoulders in front. 
An example of Sicyonian relief 
sculpture of the middle of the sixth 
century, and therefore earlier than 
Canachus, is the adornment of the 
Sicyonian treasury at Delphi. A 
metope from this building (Fig. 
42) may be compared with the 
sculpture of the treasury of the Siph- 
nians (Fig. 39), which is, to be 
sure, somewhat later, to make clear 
the different qualities ascribed to 
Doric and Ionic art. 

Aeginetan Sculpture. — At Aegina, 
as at Argos and Sicyon, the sculp- 
tors were especially noted as workers of bronze. The 
most famous Aeginetan sculptor was Onatas, but his dated 
works belong to the time after the Persian invasion. No 
works of bronze exist, which can be ascribed with cer- 
tainty to the Aeginetan artists, but the statues from the 
pediments of the temple of Aphaia ^ allow us to form a con- 
ception of their art. 

' This temple was formerly called the temple of Zeus Panhellenius, then 
of Athena. It seems now pretty certain that it was dedicated to the some- 
what obscure goddess Aphaia. These statues are now, with the exception 
of some fragments found in 1901, in Munich. They were discovered in 
1811 and were restored by Thorvaldsen. 

Figure 41. — Bronze 
statuette from Piombino. 
The Louvre, Paris. (Brunn- 
Bruckmann, 78.) 


The figures in the two pediments are of the same size 
and the same date, but are evidently not by the same artist. 
Those of the eastern pediment are more advanced in style 
and less archaic, but those from the western pediment are 
better preserved. The arrangement of the two pediment 
groups was much the same. In the middle of each stood 

Figure 42. — Relief from the Treasury of the Sicyonians Delphi. 

the goddess Athena, wearing a long robe, her aegis, and her 
helmet. To right and left of her were fighting warriors. A 
kneeling archer from the eastern pediment, who wears a 
lion's head as a helmet, is evidently Heracles, and the conflict 
is no doubt a scene of the first Trojan War, in which Heracles 
was leader. In the western pediment a battle of the more 
famous later Trojan War is without doubt represented, and 



here an archer wearing a Phrygian cap may be called Paris. 
In the western pediment and probably also in the eastern, 
there were six warriors at each side of the goddess. In 
each pediment the figures were so arranged that every small 
group and every individual figure in one half of the pediment 
had an exactly corresponding group or figure in the other 
half. The triangular space was fully utilized, but the corre- 
spondence was too exact ; the two sides of the entire composi- 
tion were not merely symmetrical, they were almost identi- 
cal. Although Athena occupies the most prominent place. 

Figure 43. — Fallen Warrior from Aegina. Munich. 
(Brunn-Bruckmann, 28.) 

she has no part in the action ; probably the goddess was 
supposed to be invisible to the combatants. 

The statues are remarkable for the boldness of their atti- 
tudes, their careful modelling, and the study of anatomy 
which they show. Not that they are anatomically quite 
correct, for they are not. The breast-bones are too short, 
and there are other slight inaccuracies; but on the whole, 
the statues show an astonishing degree of knowledge and 
skill on the part of the sculptors. They are not graceful ; 
the movements are angular, and the forms, though muscular, 
are stiff rather than supple, in spite of their vigorous action. 
All these defects are more marked in the western than in 
the eastern pediment. The faces in the western pediment 


wear a meaningless smile, like that of the "Apollo" from 
Tenea (Fig. 36), which is absent from those of the eastern 
pediment. The fallen warrior from the eastern pediment, 
perhaps the best of all the extant figures, has even a well- 
portrayed expression of pain (Fig. 43). The defects were 
doubtless not so noticeable when the statues were new and 
hair, eyes, arms, clothing, and various accessories were 
brightly colored. Taken all in all, these groups are striking 
proofs of the ability of the Aeginetan sculptors at the time 
when they were executed ; but unfortunately we cannot 
date them accurately and must content ourselves with the 
statement that they were made toward the end of the sixth 
century B.C. 

Archaic Sailpture at Athens. — Archaic sculpture at Athens 
is better known than at any other place, owing to the fact 
that when the Athenians returned to their city after the 
retreat of the Persians in 479 B.C., they found their temples 
and statues overthrown and broken. They proceeded to 
level and extend the upper surface of the Acropolis, and used 
broken statues and fragments of temples as convenient 
material for filling cavities and building out the edges of the 
hill. In this way many works of sculpture, fragmentary, 
to be sure, but still of inestimable value to us, were covered 
up and preserved, to be excavated in the latter part of the 
nineteenth century. 

Among the earliest extant works of Attic sculpture is a 
relief which once adorned the pediment of a small building. 
It is a low relief, carved in a soft and coarse variety of the 
limestone called poros stone. It represents the combat of 
Heracles with the Lernaean Hydra. In the middle is 
Heracles, brandishing his club. One entire half of the pedi- 
ment is occupied by the Hydra, with its sinuous folds; in 
the other are lolaus, the faithful companion of the great 
hero, the chariot and horses of Heracles, and a giant crab, 
which was sent by the goddess Hera to distract the attention 
of lolaus. The composition is simple and clear, but lacks 
symmetry. The artist was able to fill the triangular space 
at his disposal, but not to fill it in a satisfactory manner. 


The horses are so small as to be almost ridiculous, the dis- 
parity of size between Heracles and lolaus is excessive, and 
the surfaces are too flat. Nevertheless, the fragmentary 
figure of Heracles is not without vigor, and we feel that we 
see before us the beginnings of a real and living art. The 
coloring, which is in part preserved, was crude and unnatural, 
the chief colors being bright red and blue, which last has 
changed to green. The date of this work must be not far 
from 600 B.C., perhaps somewhat earlier. Other reliefs 
in poros stone of somewhat finer quality show better and 
more ad\'anced work. Some of these are wrought in very 
high relief, almost in the round. Several were evidently 
pediment reliefs, among them the remarkable three-bodied 

Figure 44. — So-called Typhon. Acropolis Museum, Athens. 
(Brunn-Bruckmann, 456 a.) 

creature (Fig. 44) which once occupied half of a pediment. 
Here the forms of the human bodies are vigorous, though not 
elegant, the heads are well shaped, and the faces huxe some 
expression. The coloring is still crude and unnatural, frankly 
decorative, bright blue beards, red faces, and on the serpent 
bodies red and blue stripes. Serpent forms, which taper 
toward the tail and may be arranged in coils or waves, were 
evidently convenient for pedimental composition, and frag- 
ments of several serpents have been found, which once be- 
longed in pediments. The artists had by this time learned 
to wish to fill the pediments with a symmetrical and rhyth- 
mical decoration. Certainly the three-bodied "Typhon" 
is well adapted to a place in a triangular pediment. Other 
high reliefs also of the first half of the sixth century represent 
animals and human beings or deities. Though still crude. 


they show vigor, study of nature, and the beginnings of 
skill in composition. 

Before the middle of the sixth century the sculptors of 
Athens began to use marble, instead of the softer limestone 
of which the works thus far 
discussed were made. One 
of the early marble statues 
is that of a man carrying a 
calf, the Moschophorus (Fig. 
45). An inscription tells us 
that the statue was dedi- 
cated by Bombos (Kombos 
or Rombos ; the first letter 
is defaced), who is repre- 
sented bringing his offering, 
thus making his piety en- 
dure as long as the marble. 
This work, like several others 
of the same bluish (Hymet- 
tus) marble, shows much the 
same qualities of vigor and 
force exhibited by the works 
in poros stone, but the style 
and workmanship are more 
advanced. The Moscho- 
phorus is a work of about 
the middle of the sixth cen- 
tury, the early part of the 
reign of Pisistratus. 

The Chian Style and its 
Effect. — It was during the 
reign of Pisistratus that a 
new style was introduced at Athens, a style in which 
great delicacy of detail and care in the treatment of 
drapery were important features. The artists of this 
style employed Parian marble, and we know that one of 
them, at least, was from Chios, consequently works of this 
kind are ascribed to the Chian school (see page 64) . The 

Figure 45. — Moschophorus. 
Acropolis Museum, Athens. (Brunn- 
Bruckmann, 6, Ersatz.) 



Attic sculptors soon acquired the skill of the imported artists, 
and some of them became mere imitators of their style. 
Others, however, while retaining the vigor of the earlier 
Attic school, added the exquisite workmanship and subtle 
delicacy of the Chian work. An example of Attic work im- 
derChian influence is a statueprobably by Antenor, an Athe- 
nian whose date is fixed by the fact that he made statues of 

Harmodius and 
after the expul- 
sion (in 510 
the son of Pisis- 
tratus. Here is 
no less care in 
finish, no less 
technical excel- 
lence, than is 
seen in Chian 
work, but 
greater dignity 
and vigor. A 
still more in- 
structive exam- 
ple of Attic 
work after the 
Chian artists 
had shown the 
way to technical 
by the pediment scidptures from 

Figure 46. — Figures from Temple of Athena. Acro^ 
polis Museum, Athens. (Brunn-Bruckmann, 471.) 

elaboration is aft'orded 

the temple of Athena which was enlarged under Pisistratus 
(or possibly under his sons). The scene was the combat 
of the gods with the giants. The figures are carved 
entirely in the round, not in relief like those of the 
earlier Attic pediments. There now remain only Athena 
and her opponent, besides two figures of giants, which occu- 
pied the corners. Originally there must have been at least 
two other gods, probably Zeus and Heracles. Athena was 


in the middle of the pediment, not, as in the pediments from 
Aegina, an inactive or invisible spectator, but a principal 
fighter in the strife (Fig. 46). A comparison of this group 
with the statues from Aegina shows how far the Attic sculp- 
tors surpassed the Aeginetans. Here the forms seem more 
like living forms of flesh and blood, there is more grace 
of attitude, equal vigor with less apparent -violence, and 
great technical excellence. The composition of the entire 
group, so far as its extant re- 
mains permit us to judge, was 
symmetrical and well fitted to 
the triangular space, but less 
mechanically balanced than 
that of the Aeginetan pedi- 
ments. In Attic relief work 
of this period also the vigor 
of the old Attic school is tem- 
pered to calm dignity, and 
the careful execution learned 
from the Chian artists appears 
with no taint of over-elabo- 
rate elegance. Traces of color 
show that lips, eyes, hair, and 
the borders of clothing and 
the like were painted, but the 
color was not applied to the 
whole surface. The beauty 
of the marble was appreciated 
and was not hidden under a coat of paint. The early 
works of poros stone were covered with paint, but color 
was used on marble statues and reliefs merely to enhance 
the beauty or the clearness of details. 

One of the most attractive Attic works of the time before 
the Persian sack of the city is a statue of a maiden dedicated 
by Euthydicus (Fig. 47) . The work is exquisite in detail, 
but the mannerism of the Chian school is not seen here. 
The eyes are horizontal, not oblique, as in the Chian statues, 
the mouth has not the rather meaningless smile the Chian 

Figure 47. — Figure dedicated 
by Euthydicus. Acropolis Mu- 
seum, Athens. (Brunn-Bruck- 
mann, 459.) 


artists loved, and the head as a whole has an appearance of 
real personality. This is probably a work of a time not 
long before the coming of the Persians; it may be dated 
between 490 and 480 B.C. The marble head of a youth, 
found, like the preceding, on the Acropolis at Athens, shows 
so nearly the same qualities that it may be regarded as the 
work of the same artist. These works are archaic, but they 
foreshadow the greatness to which Attic art was destined to 
attain in the course of the next two generations. 


The Period of Transition. — The defeat of the Persians 
was followed by the remarkable development of Athens. 
Before the Persian invasion 
of Greece the richest and 
greatest Greek cities had 
been in Asia Minor. There 
epic and lyric poetry had 
developed, philosophy had 
had its origin, and prose as 
a literary form of expression 
had come into being. There 
too art had flourished more 
luxuriantly than in conti- 
nental Greece. After the de- 
feat of the Persians Athens 
became the intellectual cen- 
tre of Greek civilization. 
Before that time Greek art 
was chiefly Ionic ; after that 
time it was chiefly Attic, 
though various local schools 
of sculpture, chief among 
which was that of Argos, con- 
^nued to exist. The years from the defeat of the Persians to 
the time of Pericles form a period of transition from archaic to 
developed art. The chief monument of this time is the sculp- 
tural adornment of the temple of Zeus at Olympia, begun 
soon after 470 and finished about 457 B.C., but there are 
many other interesting works. One of the earliest of these is 
the group of Harmodius and Aristogeiton (Fig. 48). The 


Figure 48. — Harmodius and Aris- 
togeiton. Naples. 



Figure 49. — Choiseul-Gouffler 
"Apollo." British Museum. 

statues made by Antenor after 
Hippias was expelled (see page 
74) had been taken away by 
the Persians. To replace them 
statues were made by two art- 
ists, Critius and Nesiotes. A 
marble copy of this group' 
is in the museum at Naples. 
The head of the Aristogeiton 
is lost and a youthful head of 
much later style has been put 
in its place.^ The nude forms 
are powerful, vigorous, and 
lifelike. The head of the Har- 
modius is covered with almost 
circular grooves and dots, in- 
tended to represent curling 
hair. The eyes are round 
and full. These statues, pre- 
sumably Attic work of the 
time immediately after the 
defeat of the Persians, ex- 
hibit, as might be expected, 
the qualities of early Attic art 
mingled with those of Ionic 

The most noted Attic sculp- 
tor of this time was Calamis, 
but our information about him 
is defective.^ Some idea of 

1 The original was of bronze. Nearly all the original works of the famous 
Greek artists are lost, but many are described by ancient writers. From 
these descriptions and by other. means many existing statues are proved to 
be copies of famous works. Such copies were fashionable and numerous 
under the Roman Empire. 

* The head was, of course, bearded, and the style must have been such 
as to accord with that of the head of Harmodius. A head in Madrid, 
formerly called Pherecydes, may be a copy of the head of the Aristogeiton. 

" The information given by ancient writers concerning Calamis is so 
confused and, apparently, contradictory as to warrant the belief that there 
were two artists of this name, separated by a century in time. Then refer- 


his style as seen in a draped female figure may perhaps be 
derived from the so-called Penelope in the Vatican, though 
there is no definite reason for ascribing this work to him. 
The Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo (Fig. 49) and its replicas may 
show the style of Calamis, but this also is uncertain.^ Works 
of this time, and Roman copies of such works, are numerous 
enough to give us a general idea of the qualities of the sculp- 
ture of the period, but not to enable us to attribute individual 
works with any certainty to the artists whose names are 

Charioteer of Delphi. — Among the extant original works 

of this period, the most important, apart from the sculptures 

of the temple of Zeus at Olympia, are the bronze charioteer 

at Delphi and the latest metopes from Selinus. The 

former was part of a group in which, besides the chariot and 

the horses, the goddess of Victory was present, probably 

also other persons; but of all these only small fragments 

remain. The dedicator was apparently Polyzalus, victor in 

the chariot race at Delphi in 474 B.C., and at that time ruler 

of Gela, in Sicily. The youthful charioteer (Fig. 50) stands 

quietly upright, holding the reins in his right hand. The 

left hand and mostjof-JJie left arm are wantijig. The attiq 

'tnde is one of repose, calm dignity, and reserved strength. 

The head is well formed, the face quiet but alert. Abov^ 

the band that encircles the head the hair is represented hf 

\ curves in low relief, but below the band, near the ears, the 

I curls were more freely rendered, being cast, at least in part, 

separately and then attached to the head. The eyes wer^ 

j of paste, white, with dark centres. The drapery is admirable, 

j especially the small folds on^ the arms, shoulders, and back . 

■ ^There is nothing about this figure to remind us especially of 

I the pediment statues from Aegina, but those are of marbl^ 


■ ences to stiffness would refer to the sculptor of the fifth century, and those 
to delicacy and charm to the later Calamis. 

' This statue exemplifies the uncertainty of attributions of copies of 
lost works to artists whose styles are known only by the vague statements 
of ancient writers. It has been ascribed to the Attic sculptor Calamis and 
also to Pythagoras of Rhegium, who was born at Samos, but lived for the 
most part among the Dorians of Sicily and Magna Grecia, and was famous 
for the realism of his works. 



and were carved perhaps thirty years or more before this was 
east. Argos and Sicyon were famous for bronze statuary, 
but we know little of the work of their schools at this time. 
The face reminds us of some of the faces drawn on Attic 
vases, but that is no sufficient reason for claiming Calamis 

or any other Attic artist 
as the creator of the statue. 
It is better to admire it as 
a masterpiece of an un- 
known artist of the period 
when Greek art was ad- 
vancing from archaism to 

The Latest Metopes from 
Selimis. — The latest me- 
topes from Selinus, only 
four of which are pre- 
served, are carved, like 
those of the three earlier 
series (page 66), of a 
coarse, local stone, but in 
this series the nude parts 
of female figures are of 
marble. Mythological 
scenes are represented. 
The style is far more ad- 
vanced than that of the 
earlier metopes, the com- 
position is excellent, and 
the postures well chosen. 
In the treatment of 
drapery, the representation of hair, and some other details, 
there are reminders of the archaic sculptures made before 
the Persian invasion, but the general impression produced 
is that of far more advanced work. These metopes recall 
in some respects the statues of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, 
but are more closely related to the sculptures of the temple 
of Zeus at Olympia. 

Figure 50. 

— Bronze Charioteer. 


Olympia. Metopes. — This temple was completed in 457 
B.C., or a little later. Its sculptures are therefore to be 
assigned to the years just before that date. There were 
twelve sculptured metopes, representing the twelve labors 
of Heracles. Two of these (the Apples of the Hesperides,' 
Fig. 51, and the Cretan Bull) are almost entirely preserved, 
the rest only in fragments. In the finest and best preserved 
of all, Heracles is seen supporting on his shoulders the 
heavens, represented appar- 
ently by the entablature. A 
cushion interposed to ease 
the weight is a delightful bit 
of realism. Behind Heracles 
stands a female figure, prob- 
ably the goddess Athena, 
helping the hero in his task. 
Before him Atlas holds out 
the apples. Hair is here 
represented by almost par- 
allel wavy lines, except where 
it is left smooth, probably 
to be represented by color. 
The eyes of heads in profile 
are no longer in full front 
view, as in the reliefs of the 
sixth century, but they are not properly drawn in profile, 
and the details of the lids are incorrect. The drapery is 
stiff, but not so conventional as that of earlier times. The 
structure and the muscles of the nude male figures are well 

Eastern Pediment. — The metopes show much the same 
qualities of style and execution as the far more important 
pediment sculptures (Fig. 52). These are by no means com- 
pletely preserved, yet they are more nearly complete than 
any other important Greek pedimental groups, with the 
possible exception of those from Aegina (p. 68), and their 
composition is clear except in some relatively unimportant 
details. In the eastern pediment the preparation for the 

Figure 51. — Metope from the 
Temple of Zeus. Olympia. (Brunn- 
Bruckmann, 442.) 



chariot race between Pelops and Oenomaus is represented. 
Zeus occupies the centre, with Pelops at his right and Oeno- 
maus at his left. Next to Pelops stand Hippodameia, 
whom he is to win as the prize of victory, and next to 
Oenomaus his wife Sterope. A seated or crouching figure, 
four horses with a chariot, two more crouching or seated 
figures, and a reclining nude male figure follow in this order 
in each side. Pausanias says the reclining figures in the 
corners are the river gods Alpheus and Cladeus. No action 
is represented ; all the figures are in quiet postures. The 
composition is clear and simple. The five erect central 

Figure 52. — Pediments of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia ; Treu's Resto- 
ration. (Luckenbach, Olympia and Delphi, p. 18.) 

figures form one group, the chariots with the horses and 
their attendants form two other groups, and the reclining 
figures in the corners indicate the scene of the story. In 
each group each figure on one side of the centre of the pedi- 
ment corresponds to a figure on the other side. 

Western Pediment. — The statues in the western pediment 
represent the combat of the Centaurs with the Lapiths at 
the marriage of Peirithous, a scene of the wildest, most vio- 
lent action. Calm and unmoved in the midst of the tur- 
moil, in the very centre of the composition, stands Apollo, 
with outstretched arm, the invisible divine arbiter of the 
struggle. At each side a hero (probably Theseus at the right 
and Peirithous at the left of the god) is striking at a Centaur 


who has seized a maiden ; then follows at each side a group 
of two figures, a Centaur and a boy and a Centaur and a 
Lapith; then on each side a group of three — a woman 
seized by a Centaur whom a kneeling Lapith forces to the 
ground ; then an old woman partially reclining on a cushion ; 
and in each corner a recumbent female figure, probably a 
nymph, or possibly a maiden who has escaped from the fray. 
These recumbent figures and the god in the middle of the 
pediment are the only persons not engaged in violent action. 

Composition. — In one pediment all is inactive and quiet, 
the other is full of action and turmoil. Yet the same prin- 
ciples of composition are employed. Zeus, in the middle 
of the eastern pediment, is flanked by two closely connected 
pairs (to which the figures seated on the ground may belong 
as attendants), in the western pediment two groups of three 
are struggling beside Apollo; in the eastern pediment the 
chariots and attendants balance exactly, in the western two 
groups of three and two of two persons produce the same 
effect of symmetry; in each pediment recumbent figures 
fill the corners. The groups in the two sides of each pedi- 
ment correspond, and each individual figure in each side is 
balanced by a figure in the other. The symmetry is exact 
in both pediments, and is produced in the same way. The 
difference between the two compositions is due simply to 
the difference between the scenes represented. 

Authorship. — The pediment sculptures are alike in 
number of figures, in rigid symmetry of two halves divided 
by an upright figure of a god, in formation of small groups in 
each half. They are alike in the outlines and proportions 
of the human bodies, in the shapes of the heads, in the 
treatment of drapery, muscles, hair, eyes, and other details, 
and also in technical execution, though in each pediment the 
execution is very uneven.^ According to Pausanias, the 
eastern pediment is by Paeonius of Mende, the western by 
Alcamenes, the pupil and rival of Phidias. But we have seen 

' In the western pediment, the two reclining figures at the north end and 
the old woman and the right arm of the nymph at the south end are ancient 
restorations. They differ in material (Pentelic marble, the rest being Parian) 
and workmanship from the other figures. 



that the two pediments are alike in everything except their 
subjects. They must therefore be the work of the same 
school, if not of the same artist. Moreover, the style is not 
sufficiently advanced, and is too unlike Attic work, to permit 
of the attribution to a pupil of Phidias.^ The statue of 

Nike at Olympia is cer- 
r^^^^HMHM^HB^^^^^Hl tainly by Paeonius (Fig, 

53), for he is mentioned 
as the artist in the in- 
scription on its base, 
but the style of this su- 
perb figure is more ad- 
vanced than that of the 
pediment groups. If, 
as is probable, the Nike 
was set up after the 
affair at Sphacteria 
(425 B.C.), it is possi- 
ble that the pediment 
groups were the work of 
Paeonius in his youth, 
before his style devel- 
oped, but this is not 
very likely, especially as 
a youthful artist would 
hardly be employed to 
decorate the most im- 
portant temple in 
Greece. It is therefore 
wiser to ascribe the 
pediment groups to no 
individual artist, and to be content with the statement that 
they are probably the work of a Peloponnesian school which 
had at some time come under Ionic influence. These power- 
ful, splendid figures lack delicacy, perhaps, but they are full 

Figure 53. — Victory by Paeonius. Olym- 
pia. (Brunn-Bruckmann, 444.) 

' The assumption that another, otherwise unknown, Alcamenes was the 
aftist of the western pediment is hardly warranted. It is simpler to assume 
that Pausanias was mistaken. 


of vigor ; the composition, in spite of its somewhat too rigid 
symmetry, is skilful and effective. Minor faults of design 
and unevenness of execution would not have been visible 
when the figures were in place high above the beholders, and 
moreover they were disguised and hidden by free use of 
color, which enhanced the brilliant effect of the whole. 

Three Great Sculptors. — At the time when the temple of 
Zeus at Olympia was finished the three most famous sculptors 
of the fifth century, Myron, Phidias, and Polyclitus, were 
already known, though the last named, and youngest, had 
only just entered upon his career.^ 

Myron. — Myron of Eleutherae, a small town on the 
borders of Attica and Boeotia, was born not far from the end 
of the sixth century, and his chief activity was in the second 
quarter of the fifth century. He belongs to the period of 
transition as a younger contemporary of Critius and Nesiotes 
and of Calamis, and he was also an elder contemporary of 
Phidias. He was especially famous for his bronze statues of 
athletes and animals. His bronze cow was said to be so 
lifelike as to deceive living cattle and even insects. Many 
of his works are described by ancient writers, and a few 
of them are known to us through copies made in Roman 
times. Among these is the Discobolus, or disk-thrower (Fig. 
54),^ the best copy of which is in the Lancelotti palace in 
Rome. The moment just before the cast is chosen, when the 
athlete has bent and twisted his whole form, to straighten 
it out in the next instant of supreme exertion. The general 
attitude, the tense fingers of the left hand, the bent toes of 

1 Pliny (Nat. Hist, xxxiv, 57 and 55) says .that Myron and Polyclitus 
were pupils of Hageladas of Argos, who is mentioned as the teacher of 
Phidias by Tzetues and a scholiast on Aristophanes. The statement is 
probably true of Polyclitus only, but it is interesting to note that the an- 
cient writers from whom the late authors mentioned drew their information 
saw nothing improbable in the assertion that the two great Attic sculptors 
were trained in the Argive school. 

^ The tree trunk, which serves as a support in the Lancelotti statue and 
other replicas, is necessary in the marble reproduction, but was not needed, 
and was therefore not present, in the bronze original. For this reason our il- 
lustration gives a better idea of the original than a direct photograph of the 
Lancelotti statue would |do. Many marble copies of bronze statues were 
made in Roman times, and most of them have supports similar to this. 
When the bronze original is under discussion, the support must be disregarded. 



the left foot, as they drag on the ground, all show accurate 
observation and careful study of nature. The face, to be 
sure, lacks the intense expression that accompanies violent 
exertion, and the hair is imperfectly rendered, though a 
comparison with the uniform circular curls of the Harmodius 
by Critius and Nesiotes shows wonderful progress. No ves- 
tige of the "law of frontality" remains. The representation 

of the human form, even 
in the most contorted pos- 
ture or the most violent 
motion, is accomplished. 
Yet this figure, with all 
its careful detail, evidently 
the result of most accu- 
rate study of nature, stops 
short of the reproduction 
of the individual peculiar- 
ities of the model. Like 
all Greek works of the 
classic period, it is, in 
modern parlance, an ideal- 
istic not a realistic work. 
The artist studied nature 
until he could combine in 
one statue the details he 
had observed in many 
persons, thus creating a 
perfectly natural figure, 
but without those imper- 
fections which are present in every individual work of 
nature. The idealism of the Discobolus is, however, 
purely physical ; it does not soar upwards into the realm 
of great conceptions. Another work by Myron which 
is known to us by copies is a group of Marsyas and 
Athena (Fig. 55).^ According to the story, Athena tried 

^ 1 The Marsyas in a full-sized marble copy in the Lateran Museum and a 
bronze statuette in the British Museum ; the Athena in a marble copy at 
Frankfort on the Main (both hands and a large part of both arms are miss- 
ing), a head at Dresden, and several torsos. The Lateran copy of the 

Figure 54. — Discobolus by Myron, 
as reconstructed in the National Mu- 
seum, Rome. 


flute playing, but saw her image reflected at the moment in a 
pool of water, and threw away the flutes in disgust. At 
that moment Marsyas saw the flutes and seized them with 
delight. Myron chose for his group the moment when the 
satyr sees the flutes lying on the ground. His excitement is 
clearly portrayed in his attitude, which contrasts strongly 

FiGUHE 55. 

-Athena and Marsyas, by Myron, as restored in the Archaeo- 
logical Museum, Munich. 

with the disdainful posture of Athena, as the uncultured 
shrewdness and eagerness of his face contrasts with the 
intellectual calm of hers. The Athena is a graceful, attrac- 
tive, and dignified figure, and the group must have been 

Marsyas is wrongly restored with castanets in the hands. Of course the 
hands should be empty; moreover, the position of the arms is probably 
not correct. Critics differ concerning the hands of Athena ; she can hardly 
have held the flutes, as in our illustration, but may have held her spear in 
her right hand. 


effective and even impressive. Myron was a versatile ar- 
tist, and among his works were many statues of deities ; but 
whether he was capable of real grandeur of thought we do 
not know. That he made great progress in the representa- 
tion of human beings and animals, whether at rest or in 
violent motion, is certain. 

Phidias. — Of the three great sculptors of the fifth cen- 
tury, Phidias was apparently the greatest. Yet we cannot 
assert positively that he surpassed the others either in tech- 
nical skill or in careful observation. His greatness was 
due to the purity and grandeur of his conceptions. The 
types of the greater gods were established by him for all the 
succeeding centuries ; they were employed by the Romans, 
and the type of his Zeus at Olympia has even been recog- 
nized in the representations of God the Father by Christian 
artists. His most famous works, both of which are described 
in detail by Pausanias, were two colossal statues, that of 
Zeus at Olympia and that of Athena in the Parthenon at 
Athens. Both were chryselephantine, that is, the nude 
parts were encrusted with ivory, the drapery made of beaten 
gold. This technique developed naturally, with the in- 
crease of wealth, from the earlier method (page 67) of en- 
crusting wooden figures with bronze and precious metals. 
The originals are gone, but the descriptions make it possible 
to recognize copies or adaptations of both statues in later 
works. ^ None of these, however, gives more than the 
general form and attitude, with details of ornamentation, 
of the great statues. The effect of the originals, produced by 
their colossal size, the brilliancy of their precious materials, 
the mastery of their execution, and the personal inspiration 
of the great artist can be restored only in imagination. The 
literary evidence for that effect is convincing, but the copies 

' Two small copies of the Athena Parthenos are in Athens ; the Varvakeion 
statuette (1.03 m. in height, Fig. 56) and the unfinished Lenormant statu- 
ette (0.34 m. high without the base) ; the head is reproduced on a carved 
gem (the Aspasios gem) and on two gold medallions from the Crimea ; the 
"Minerve au collier" in the Louvre may serve as an example of adaptations. 
The Zeus (both the entire statue and the head separately) is reproduced on 
Elean bronze coins of Roman date, and most seated figures of gods and 
Roman emperors are more or less directly descended from this statue. 


and adaptations of the statues are either of small size or 
mediocre technique. Even from these, however, it is evident 
that Phidias relied for his effect, apart from richness of 
material, colossal size, and careful workmanship, upon 
simplicity of posture and calm 
dignity. The drapery of the 
Athena falls in nearly straight, 
parallel folds, except in so far 
as the position of the left foot 
causes some variety; there is 
no attempt to exhibit the ar- 
tist's cleverness in representing 
various textures or to disclose the 
forms of the body through thin 
or delicate coverings. There is 
no hint of the consummate skill 
in the treatment of carefully dis- 
ordered and transparent drapery 
which is seen in some of the fig- 
ures from the pediments of the 
Parthenon and still more in the 
reliefs of the balustrade of the 
temple of Athena Nike. In 
comparison with those works 
the Athena, making all allow- 
ances for the fact that we pos- 
sess only poor copies, seems 
almost archaic. The head is 
strong, of a rather round oval, 
not unlike that of the Harmodius 
of Critius and Nesiotes in shape. 
The Zeus at Olympia was 
seated, holding a figure of Victory 

in his right hand and a sceptre in his left. He was bearded 
and wore a wreath of olive on his head. Ancient writers 
emphasize the benignity and power of his aspect. The 
general type of the face is recognizable on coins, but no ade- 
quate copy of the head exists. Some idea of its appearance 

FiGTJRE 56. — The Varva- 
keion Athena. National Mu- 
seum, Athens. 



may be derived from a marble head of the fom^th century in 
the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston or from a bronze in 
Vienna (Fig. 57). 

The Athena Parthenos was dedicated in 438 B.C. It is 
said that Phidias represented himself on the shield of Athena 
as a bald-headed old man. Not long after the completion 
of this statue, perhaps about 4.32 B.C., he was banished from 

Athens, and apparently 
it was then that he be- 
gan work on the Zeus at 
Olympia, which may not 
have been finished for 
some years. He prob- 
ably died at or near 
Olympia, not long after 
the completion of the 
Zeus. His earliest re- 
corded works (among 
them probably the so- 
called Athena Proma- 
chos, a colossal bronze 
figure on the Acropolis 
at Athens) can hardly 
be later than 470 B.C. 
The date of his birth 
must therefore be little, 
if at all, after 500 B.C. 
Although his most fa- 
mous statues were made 
in the second half of the 
fifth century, the greater number of his works belonged 
apparently to the first half, and the earliest among them were 
certainly not free from archaism. His great fame justifies 
us in the belief that his contemporaries considered him 
largely responsible for the remarkable progress of Attic 
sculpture between the Persian invasion and the Peloponne- 
sian War. We do not know the number of his works of 
marble, bronze, and other materials. Many are mentioned 

FiGUEE 57. — Bronze Head of Zeus, 
Vienna. (Jahreshefte d. Oesterr. Archaol. 
Institutes, XIV, pi. ii.) 


by ancient writers, but only two, the Athena Parthenos and 
the Zeus, have been identified with certainty in later 

Polyditus. — Polychtus, the third of the great masters 
of the fifth century, was an Argive, though probably of 
Sicyonian birth. His earliest known work is the statue of 
Cyniscus, winner of the boys' boxing match at Olympia in 
462 B.C. About 423 he made the great chryselephantine 
statue of Hera in her temple near Argos. His life must then 
have extended from about 490 or 485 to 423 B.C. or later. 
His works, almost exclusively of bronze, were chiefly stat- 
ues of victorious athletes. All these fi:gures, so far as is 
known, stood erect, with the weight borne chiefly on one 
foot. This was not peculiar to the works of Polyclitus, but 
the arrangement by which the figure appears to be walking, 
with the weight borne by the foot that is the more advanced, 
seems to be his invention. The ancient critics regarded him 
as one of the greatest artists, but his greatness appears to 
have resided rather in the perfection of proportions and tech- 
nique than in fertility of invention or grandeur of concep- 

None of his works is preserved in the original, but three 
of his most famous statues exist in marble copies.^ These 
are the Doryphorus, the Diadumenus, and the Amazon. 
They are alike in the relatively broad, square head, square 
shoulders, and powerful forms, and all stand in the walking 
posture described above. The Doryphorus was called the 
"Canon" and was regarded as the model of proportions 
(Fig. 58) . It is indeed little more than a typical example of 

' In 1893 Professor Furtwangler combined a head in Bologna with a 
torso in Dresden and reconstructed a statue of Athena which is clearly a 
work of the time of Phidias. It may be, though this is far from certain, 
a copy of the Athena Lemnia, a bronze statue by Phidias, which was set 
up on the Acropolis at Athens about 450 B.C. Other existing statues have 
been claimed as copies of works of Phidias, but none of these identifications 
has been as yet universally accepted. 

2 Pausanias, ii, 17,4, gives a description of the great seated statue of Hera, 
and Argive coins give a general notion of the head with its elaborate crown 
or head-dress. Sir Charles Waldstein (Journ. of Hellenic Studies, 1901, 
pp. 30—44) finds an adaptation of this head in a marble head in the British 
Museum. On a cylix with a white ground in Berlin is a statuesque figure 
of Hera wearing a similar head-dress. 



the Polyclitan formula of rest in motion, admirable in its 
simplicity. The Diadumenus, with the hands raised to 
hold the ends of the band or ribbon that i.s to be bound about 
the head, is more individual in attitude. The proportions 

are somewhat slighter, probably 
because the youth represented is 
supposed to be younger. Of the 
two types of Amazon created dur- 
ing the fifth century, one resem- 
bles the Doryphorus in proportions 
and general lines about as closely 
as a female figure can resemble 
the figure of a young man. This 
is the "Berlin type," best repre- 
sented by a statue in the museum 
in Berlin, though even this appears 
to be a somewhat inaccurate copy 
of the bronze original. The mar- 
ble copies of the famous works 
of Polyclitus give us some idea 
of his style, but not of his tech- 
nical skill. ^ His original works 
are lost, and we can judge of 
their perfection only by the state- 
ments of ancient writers. Their 
popularity is attested by the great 
number of copies and adaptations 
of them which were produced in 
later times, and his great influence 
is proved by the traces of his style 
seen in the works of some of the 
most gifted among his successors. 
Scidpturcs from, the Heraeum. — The marble copies of the 
works of Polyclitus are somewhat dull and lifeless. Frag- 

' In the museum at Naples is a bronze copy of the head of the Doryphorus 
which is undoubtedly more like the original than the head of the marble 
statue ; but even this is only a copy and fails to make clear to us why the 
ancient critics regarded Polyclitus as almost, if not quite, the equal of 
Phidias. The same museum contains also a bronze head of an Amazon 
of Polyclitan style. 

Figure .58. — The Do- 
ryphorus of Polyclitus. Na. 
pies. (Brunn-Bruckmann 
273 Ersatz.) 


ments of sculpture which once decorated the temple near 
Argos, for which Polyclitus made the statue of Hera, pro- 
duce a different impression. We have no reason to suppose 
that they are the work of the great artist himself, but they 
are original works of his time, and were doubtless designed 
and executed by artists who were strongly influenced by the 
acknowledged chief of the Argive school. They show far 
more freshness of conception and variety of expression 
than do the copies of his famous statues. Among these 
fragments one of the most interesting is a youthful 
female head, usually called "Hera" (Fig. 59), which 
may have had a place in one of the 
pediments of the temple. This head is 
somewhat less square or broad than that 
of the Doryphorus or of the Amazon, 
and therefore tends more toward the 
Attic type, but it is Argive work of 
the time and school of Polyclitus. It 
shows that the work of that school was 
less monotonous and stereotyped than 
might be inferred from the Roman copies 
of the great artist's famous works. To 
that extent, therefore, this head and the 
other fragments of the decorative sculp- 
tures of the temple may supplement 
and correct our estimate of the style of 

Other Sculptors of the Fifth Century. — Several other 
artists of this period are known by name. Lycius was the 
son of Myron ; Agoracritus, of Paros, Alcamenes, of Athens, 
and Colotes, of Heraclea near Elis, were pupils of Phidias ; 
Praxias was a pupil of Calamis; Cresilas, of Cydonia, in 
Crete, Styppax, of Cyprus, and Strongylion, of Megara, were 
sculptors of note. Most of them seem to have worked chiefly 
at Athens, though the only works of Colotes mentioned by 
ancient writers were in or near Elis. Paeonius, of Mende, 
in Thrace, was the artist of the Nike at Olympia (page 84) 
and also of the acroteria of the temple of Zeus. A bust of 






L " '> 1 

%%•/. 1 

T^^t^ "- m 


■' ''i^J 

FiGUBE 59. — So- 
called Hera. National 
Museum, Athena. 
(Waldstein, Excava- 
tions . . . at the Hera- 
ion of Argos, 189S, 
Pl. V.) 


Pericles in the British Museum is regarded with good reason 
as a copy of an original by Cresilas; it is the work of an 
artist of great ability. Alcamenes was especially noted for 
the delicacy of his work. He may have been the originator 
of the type known as "Venus Genetrix," a thinly veiled 
female figure (see page 136). It seems that Pausanias was in 
error in ascribing to him the figures in the western pediment 
of the temple of Zeus at Olympia (page 83). Agoracritus 
is said to have been the artist of the statue of Nemesis at 
Rhamnus, though it is ascribed by some writers to Phidias 
himself. The statue is lost, but fragments of the reliefs 
which once adorned its pedestal are now in the museum at 
Athens. They are charming in design and execution and, 
in spite of their small proportions, have something of the 
dignity of great art; they prove to us that the sculptor's 
reputation was deserved. 

The Sculptures of the Parthenon. — The famous works of 
Myron, Phidias, Polyclitus, and their contemporaries were 
free-standing statues, works of substantive sculpture, for 
the most part of bronze or of gold and ivory. These are 
known to us only by descriptions or, at best, by late copies, 
usually of inferior workmanship and different material. The 
Nike of Paeonius is a solitary exception, and Paeonius was 
not one of the most famous sculptors. The decorative works 
are not so completely lost, and the sculptures of the 
Parthenon, even in their fragmentary condition, are among 
the greatest monuments of human genius. The temple was 
begun in 447 and dedicated in 438 B.C., though it was not 
entirely finished until 432. The metopes, above the archi- 
trave, were carved before they were put in place, that is, 
certainly by 438. The Ionic frieze that ran round the wall 
of the cella may have been carved after it was in place, 
though probably it also was finished by 438. The statues 
that filled the pediments were probably carved and put in 
place after the dedication of the temple. At any rate, all 
the sculptures may be dated between 447 and 432 B.C.- The 
metopes, ninety-two in number, each about four feet square 
(1.20 m. by 1.27 m.) were adorned with figures in very high 


relief, the Ionic frieze was a band of relatively low relief, 
522 ft. 8 in. (159.42 m.) long and 3 ft. 3.5 in. (1 m.) high; 
the pediments, 93 ft. (28.35 m.) long and 11| ft. (3.456 m.) 
high in the middle, 
were completely 
filled with colossal 
statues. The entire 
building, including 
the sculptures, was 
of Pentelic marble.^ 
The only metopes 
sufficiently well pre- 
served to enable us 
to judge of their 
style and workman- 
ship are those in the 
British Museum, all 
of which represent 
Centaurs in conflict 
with Lapithae. In 
some of these the 
figures are stiff and not free from archaism, the composition 
imperfect, and the workmanship mediocre; in others the 
design is vigorous, full of life, and admirably adapted to the 

' Of the metopes forty-three are still in place on the Parthenon (where 
they have suffered much from exposure), fifteen are in the British Museum, 
one in the Louvre, and fragments are in the British Museum, the Louvre, 
the Acropolis Museum at Athens, and one in Copenhagen. The rest are 
lost. The subjects were : at the east end, the battle of the Gods and Giants ; 
at the west end, the battle of the Athenians and the Amazons ; at the ends 
of the south side and the middle of the north side, combats of Centaurs and 
Lapithae ; in the middle of the south side and toward the ends of the north 
side, scenes apparently of the Trojan War. Of the Ionic frieze, the part 
which decorates the west end is still in place, as is also a small part of that 
on the south side. Most of the rest is in the British Museum, though 
several slabs and fragments are in the Acropolis Museum at Athens. Of 
the pediment statues, nearly all the extant remains are in the British Museum, 
only fragments being in Athens. The so-called Weber or De Laborde head is 
in Paris. Drawings by an artist (not, as was formerly believed, Jacques 
Carrey) who was in Athens with the Marquis de Nointel in 1674 represent 
the sculptures of the Parthenon as they were at that time, before the build- 
ing was wrecked (in 1687) by the explosion of gunpowder that was stored 
in it. The sculptures from the Parthenon now in the British Museum were 
sent to England by Lord Elgin and form the most valuable part of the 
"Elgin Marbles." 

Figure 60. — Metope of the Parthenon. Brit- 
ish Museum. (Brunn-Briickmann, 184.) 



square space to be filled, while the workmanship shows 
remarkable skill. Figure 60 reproduces one of the best. 

The Ionic frieze represents the Panathenaic procession in 
honor of Athena, — not with all the details of the real pro- 
cession, but with the essential elements clearly portrayed. 
At the west end the knights, youths of the best Athenian 
families, are preparing to mount their horses or have just 
mounted and started on their way. On the north and south 
sides the procession mo\'es toward the east end. Here are 

Figure 61. 

-From the Eastern Frieze of the Parthenon. AcropoHs Mu- 
seum, Athens. (Brunn-Bi-uckmann, 194.) 

\oung men on prancing horses, chariots with their drivers 
and the armed men who fought either from the chariot or 
on foot, sheep and cows led to sacrifice, maidens carrying 
jars, venerable citizens, and youths with sacred offerings. 
On each long side of the temple the procession is represented, 
so that the spectator could see it equally well, whether he 
walked along the northern or the southern portico. At the 
east end the procession turns the corner, headed by maidens 
bearing sacrificial instruments. Before them stand two 
groups of men, perhaps the ten eponymous heroes of the 
Attic tribes, with a few other persons whose significance is 


not clear to us. There are at each side six seated figures, 
the twelve great gods (Fig. 61), and with them Iris attend- 
ant upon Hera and Eros leaning upon the knees of his 
mother Aphrodite. In the middle, immediately over the 
door, is a group consisting of two maidens carrying stools, 
a priestess, and a priest who seems to be taking from a young 
attendant a large folded cloth, probably the peplos, or sacred 
cloak, of the goddess. The purpose of the procession was 
to bring the peplos to Athena on her sacred Acropolis ; that 
purpose is here seen accomplished in the presence of the 
Attic heroes and the great divinities. The eastern frieze 
thus expresses the religious significance of the whole. 

The metopes were placed on the outside of the entablature, 
in the full brightness of the Attic sunlight ; they are there- 
fore carved in very high relief, which casts deep shadows. 
The frieze was high up on the wall of the cella, always in 
the shade, and receiving only diffused and reflected light 
from below ; it was therefore carved in relatively low relief. 
Since the light came from below, the shadows must fall up- 
ward ; therefore the artist made the lower parts of the figures 
project less from the background than the upper parts and 
cut the upper outlines in sharply, while the lower parts of 
the figures, as a rule, reach the background gradually, by 
oblique curves. 

The clearness of the design and the brilliancy of the effect 
were increased by color, the use of which was a matter of 
course. The execution of the relief varies considerably, 
as is natural, for many stone-cutters were necessarily em- 
ployed to carve it, but the quality of the design is remark- 
ably consistent. Evidently the frieze is the work of one 
artist in whom fertility of invention, accurate observation, 
fine appreciation of harmony, and love of beauty were united. 
The convention of Greek relief sculpture which demands 
that all heads be approximately in one line (isocephalism) 
is observed, but does not result in monotony. In fact, the 
frieze is remarkable for the variety it presents. In all its 
hundreds of figures there is no repetition. Everywhere 
there is life, grace, and nobility. 



The pediment sculptures represented at the east the birth 
of Athena and at the west the strife of Athena with Poseidon 
for the possession of Attica. This we know from the state- 
ment of Pausanias. Drawings made in 1674 represent the 
pediments as they were at that time, when the sculptures 
of the western end were almost entire ; but the central group 
of the eastern pediment was even then destroj'ed. Zeus, 
Athena, and Hephaestus, or Prometheus, were certainly 
present, and with them were probably the Eilithyiae, or 
goddesses of childbirth, while above, in the very centre 

of the pediment, 
floated the goddess 
of victory, Nike, 
the constant com- 
panion of Athena. 
So the scene is 
represented on a 
puteal in Madrid. 
Each statue had 
a separate plinth, 
and the marks left 
on the blocks of the 
cornice which sup- 
ported the statues 
indicate that Zeus 
was seated just at 
the left of the centre, with Athena standing before him, at the 
right. The first extant figure toward the left is Iris, bearing 
the news to two seated figures, perhaps Demeter and Perseph- 
one, or possibly the Horae, just beyond. The superb male 
figure next to these (Fig. 62) , often called Theseus or Dionysus, 
has also been interpreted as a personification of Mount 
Olympus. In the corner Helios, the sun-god, driving his four 
horses, rises from the sea. The three splendid draped female 
figures at the right (Fig. 63), usually called the Fates, have 
been interpreted as the three Attic Horae, and also as per- 
sonifications of aspects of nature. In the corner Selene, the 
moon-goddess, in her four-horse chariot, sinks into the sea. 

Figure 62. — So-called Theseus, from the Par- 
thenon. British Museum. 


The central group of the western pediment is shown, for 
the most part, in the drawing of 1674, and is reproduced, 
with some changes, on an ancient vase from Kertch, now in 
St. Petersburg. In the centre was the sacred ohve tree, 
Athena's gift to Athens. At the left stands Athena, who has 
just struck the ground with her spear. At the right stands 
Poseidon with his trident. Both figures draw back from the 
centre. Behind Athena is her chariot, driven by Nike, and 
behind Poseidon his chariot, with Amphitrite as driver. 
The nude male figure beside Athena's chariot is probably 

Figure 63. — So-called Fates, from the Parthenon. British Museum. 
(Brunn-Bruckmann, 190.) 

Hermes, and the corresponding draped female figure may be 
Iris. Probably the recumbent figures in the corners are a 
river-god, Cephisus or Ilisus, and a nymph, Calirrhoe. The 
remaining figures have been interpreted as (1) gods and 
heroes who were present at the contest, (2) Attic divinities 
and heroes symbolizing the Athenian people and theirinterest 
in the event, or (3) personifications of features of the country 
of Attica. A sure interpretation is almost impossible, owing 
to the loss of the heads of the statues, the imperfections of 
the drawings of 1674, and the total absence of attributes. 
But if we cannot fully interpret the meaning the artist 


intended to convey, we can admire the beauty of the individual 
figures and the variety and rhythmic movement of the com- 
position (Fig. 64). The astonishing progress made by Greek 
sculptors in one generation is seen by comparison of these 
works with the pediment sculptures of Olympia. Here is 
no trace of archaic stiffness, no mechanical division of the 
pediment by an upright figure in the centre designed accord- 
ing to the old law of frontality, no difficulty or timidity in 
the treatment of drapery. In some cases, notably in -the 
recumbent "Fate" of the eastern pediment, the drapery is 
treated with almost ostentatious mastery, and the massive, 
athletic figure of the so-called Theseus is unsurpassed as a 
portrayal of the nude form. As at Olympia, the figures of 
each pediment are arranged in groups, those at one side of 

Figure 04. — E;istern Pediment of the Parthenon, as reconstructed by Karl 
Schwerzek, Vienna. 

the middle corresponding to those at the other side, but here 
the correspondence is no longer exact or mechanical, but is 
varied, a male figure corresponding to a female, a nude form 
to one that is draped, a bearded man to a youth. Sym- 
metry is preserved, but it is combined with variety in such 
a way as to produce a rich and harmonious rhythm. With 
these groups, pedimental composition attains its greatest 

The sculptures of the Parthenon are unequalled among the 
remains of Greek decorative sculpture. The metopes are 

' The convention of Greek art, according to which the most important 
figures were (or might be) made larger than the rest, was especially con- 
venient in pedimental composition, since it enabled the artist to make his 
figures decrease in size as the height of the triangular space diminished 
toward the corners. The lack of such a convention in modern art increases 
the difficulty of filling a pediment. 


superior to those of Olympia and of the so-called Theseum, 
not to speak of earlier examples, no continuous band of 
sculpture exists which can bear comparison with the frieze, 
and the pediment groups are unrivalled. Phidias was con- 
sidered the greatest sculptor of his time, and Plutarch says 
that Phidias was general superintendent of the building opera- 
tions of Pericles. It has therefore been generally assumed 
that Phidias was the artist of the decorative sculptures of 
the Parthenon. But even if Plutarch's statement is correct, 
which is by no means certain, it does not establish any direct 
connection between Phidias and those sculptures. The 
copies (very poor, to be sure) of the Athena Parthenos are 
the only sure and direct evidence we have for the style of 
Phidias, and they exhibit a style much simpler and much 
less advanced than that of the pediment figures. Of course 
some difference of style is to be expected, for the Athena 
was a colossal cult statue, and the pediment figures were 
decorative sculptures of marble, not of gold and ivory ; 
but the difference is greater than can be explained in this 
way. The metopes again differ among themselves in style 
as well as in execution. If they were not found on the 
same temple, they would not be ascribed to the same artist. 
Indeed, since they were ninety-two in number, it is quite 
possible that they were designed by more than one person. 
The frieze is evidently the work of one artist, but there 
is no close similarity of style between it and the metopes 
on one hand or the pediment sculptures on the other. It is 
possible that the metopes were designed (as the Athena 
Parthenos was) by Phidias before 438, that he then designed 
the frieze, which is in a later and more advanced style, and 
that in the next years he created the pediment groups. The 
three parts of the sculptural adornment of the Parthenon 
would in that case show different aspects of the genius of 
one man, as it developed in the brief space of six years or a 
little more."^ That is possible; but as yet the stages of 
progress from the style of the Athena Parthenos to that of the 

> Fifteen years, if we reckon from the date of the beginning of the Parthe- 
non to 432 B.C. when the records of work on the building cease. 


pediment groups cannot be traced in such detail as to make 
it certain or even very probable. The decorative sculptures 
of the Parthenon are the products of Athenian art as it 
developed under the influence of Phidias, though there is 
no proof that they are his own work, or that they are all 
the work of one man. 

Sculptures of the Theseum. — Portions of the sculptures 
are extant which adorned three other buildings erected at 
Athens in the second half of the fifth century : the so-called 
Theseum, the temple of Athena Nike (Nike Apteros), and 
the Erechtheum. The so-called Theseum was a Doric 
temple with pediment groups, eighteen sculptured metopes, 
and continuous friezes across the pronaos and opisthodomus, 
just below the ceiling in the eastern and western porticos. 
The pediment groups have disappeared, but the metopes and 
friezes are still in place. The metopes have suffered greatly 
from exposure and are much defaced. In them the labors 
of Heracles and Theseus were represented in high relief. 
The groups were well composed and well adapted to fill the 
square spaces. In general, their style makes it probable that 
they are works of the pupils of Myron rather than of the 
school of Phidias, but their present condition is such that 
nothing definite can be said about them. The friezes are 
far better preserved. They are not so high above the 
spectator as the frieze of the Parthenon, and they are better 
lighted, though they also receive the light from below. The 
relief is higher than that of the frieze of the Parthenon. The 
eastern frieze represents scenes of battle and seated deities, 
who are, like the seated deities in the eastern frieze of the 
Parthenon, undoubtedly supposed to be invisible to the 
human beings among whom they sit. The western frieze 
represents the combat of Lapithae and Centaurs. In both 
friezes the composition is broken up into small groups, often 
of two persons, as if the artist were accustomed to compose 
reliefs for square spaces, and one of these groups in the 
western frieze is almost a repetition of one of the metopes of 
the Parthenon. In general, however, the reliefs of these 
friezes are excellent in design and execution. 


The Temple of Athena Nike. — The frieze of the temple of 
Athena Nike ("Wingless Victory") is probably a little 
later than those of the Parthenon and the "Theseum," for 
in it the tendency is seen to employ floating drapery as a 
means of filling spaces which would otherwise be vacant. 
This tendency is not seen 
in the other friezes men- 
tioned, but is prevalent 
in later work. This 
frieze is only about eigh- 
teen inches high, conse- 
quently the figures are 
small. At the eastern 
end an assembly of 
deities is represented, on 
the other sides (for the 
frieze runs round the en- 
tire building) scenes of 
battle. Probably some 
battle of the Persian war 
is intended. The work 
is careful and the com- 
position good. 
y The temple of Athena 
Nike stands on a partly 
artificial projection, or 
bastion, at the west end of 
the Acropolis at Athens. 
About the edges of this 
bastion was a marble cop- 
ing, or balustrade, adorned 
with reliefs which repre- 
sented winged Victories. One is arranging a trophy, two 
are leading a refractory cow to sacrifice, another (Fig. 65) is 
adjusting her footgear, others are engaged in various other 
activities. These reliefs are unfortunately fragmentary, 
but enough is preserved to show the exquisite quality of the 
workmanship, the freedom of the design, and especially the 

Figure 65. — Fragment of the Balus- 
trade of the Temple of Athena Nike. 
Acropolis Museum, Athens. 


skill with which the flowing drapery is treated. Some- 
times it falls in graceful folds, and again it seems to cling to 
the full and vigorous forms beneath it, almost as if it were 
wet. Here the artist exults in his mastery. Such drapery 
is not natural, but it produces the impression of reality. 
When these wonderful reliefs were colored and gilded, the 
effect of the balustrade must have been brilliant indeed. 

The Erechtheum. — The Erechtheum was an Ionic temple 
of exceptional form and unusually rich adornment. Nothing 
now remains of the figures which may have filled its three 
pediments, but fragments of the frieze which encircled the 
whole building are preserved, as are also the female figures, 
or Caryatids, which support the architrave of the south- 
western porch. Moreover, the bases and capitals of the 
columns were richly carved, the necks of columns, the 
door-casings, and the mouldings were adorned with beauti- 
fully chiselled guilloches, palmettes, and rosettes. The 
frieze consisted of a band of very dark gray stone, to which 
figures of white Pentelic marble were attached by means of 
iron dowels or pegs. The figures probably represented scenes 
of the myth of P>ichthonius, not a continuous procession 
or a single assemblage. The workmanship was not un- 
usually fine, so far as the much damaged surfaces of the 
figures enable us to judge.' The six Caryatids are admirable 
and have served as the models for all later figures of the kind. 
The idea of using female figures as supports was not new, 
but the combination of firmness, grace, dignity, and charm 
in these figures proclaims them the work of a master (Fig. 
66). The heads are a little more square than the usual 
Attic type, hence the suggestion has been made that these 

' In an inscription recording the money expended by the commission in 
charge of the erection of the Erechtheum, the sums paid for carving the 
frieze arid the persons to whom they were paid are mentioned. The pay 
for carving an ordinary figure (the figures were about two feet high and 
were, of course, since they had to be fastened to the dark stone baclcground, 
flat at the baclc) was 60 drachmas (somewhat more than S13 or £2,12s.). 
Tlie money was paid to a considerable number of different persons, who 
were evidently not regarded as artists, but as mere workmen or artisans. 
There must have been a large number of such skilled workmen at Athens, 
especially in the times just before and during the Pelopounesian War, when 
those who had worked on the Parthenon were still available. 


figures are the work of an 
Argive sculptor. On the other 
hand, the head called "Hera," 
from the Argi^ Heraeum (Fig. 
59) has been claimed as Attic 
work, because it is less square 
than that of the Polyclitan 
Amazon or Doryphorus. The 
truth is probably that the 
schools of Argos and of Athens, 
in the latter part of the fifth 
century, were not completely 
isolated, but each influenced 
the other. In general, the in- 
fluence of Attic art was the 
stronger, not only in conti- 
nental Greece, but through- 
out the Hellenic world. 

Frieze from Phigaleia. Gjol 
Baschi. The Nereid Monu- 
ment. — At Bassae, near Phi- 
galeia, in Arcadia, the frieze 
of the temple of Apollo Epi- 
curius (now in the British 
Museum) represents the bat- 
tles of Lapithae with Centaurs 
and Greeks with Amazons. 
Although the workmanship is 
by no means equal to that of 
the Athenian reliefs just de- 
scribed, the design is free and 
A'igorous. This frieze, which 
is remarkable for its bold, and 
not always successful, at- 
tempts at foreshortening, is 
almost certainly Attic work. 
Strong Attic influence, if not 
actual Attic work, is seen in the 

FiGUKE 66. — Caryatid from the 
Erechtheum. British Museum. 



reliefs from Gjol Baschi, now in Vienna, and the sculptures of 
the Nereid Monument, now in the British Museum. In the 
former, which dates from a time not much after the middle 
of the fifth century, the influence of the art of painting is 
evident. The Nereid monument may perhaps be a work 
of the fourth century. At any rate, it is plain that Attic 

influence was predomi- 
nent in the sculpture 
of Lycia when those 
works were executed. 

Various Reliefs. — ' 
Reliefs were employed 
at all periods of Greek 
art not only for the dec- 
oration of buildings, but 
also as votive offerings, 
headings for inscrip- 
tions, gravestones, and 
the like. Such reliefs 
are of interest, even 
when they have little 
artistic value, because 
they show the popular 
use of relief sculpture; 
and some of them are 
of great beauty. Most 
of the sculptured grave- 
stones belong to the 
fourth century, but 
many of the votive re- 
liefs are earlier. One of the finest of this class is the 
large relief from Eleusis (now in Athens) which repre- 
sents Demeter and Cora (Persephone) with the youthful 
Triptolemus (or Bacchus). In the treatment of drapery, 
hair, and eyes, there are noticeable traces of archaism, 
and the attitudes are somewhat stiff. It has been sug- 
gested that one, at least, of the female figures may be 
a copy of a statue. ' The date of this work is probably 

Figure 67. 

-So-called Mourning Athena, 


a little after the middle of the fifth century, somewhat 
earlier than the frieze of the Parthenon. Another charming 
relief, though not of remarkable workmanship, is the so- 
called Mourning Athena, which was apparently the heading 
of an inscription (Fig. 67) . It is a work of about the middle 
of the fifth century, or a trifle earlier, and shows marked 
traces of archaism. The meaning of the relief is hot 
clear, but perhaps Athena is gazing pensively at a list of 
Athenians who have fallen in battle. Even the unknown 
and unimportant artists of this period were able to express 
themselves in forms of simple dignity and beauty. 

Progress in the Fifth Century. — In the fifth centurY_(Tr£ek 
sculptors advanced from archaic stiffness, mannerism, and 
conventionality to grace and simplicity, learned to represent 
correctly the forms of men and animals, both in general 
structure and in details, such as hands and eyes, developed 
great skill in the representation of drapery, invented and 
perfected the chief types of deities, and created decorative 
compositions which have never been surpassed. The so- 
called Theseus, from the eastern pediment of the Parthenon, 
is a model of physical perfection ; the frieze of the Parthenon 
combines in unparalleled degree the qualities of dignity, 
grace, variety, and charm ; the maidens of the porch of the 
Erechtheum are unequalled among examples of sculptured 
figures employed as architectural members. It would seem 
that by the end of the fifth century Greek sculpture had 
reached perfection. So, in a sense, it had, and in their ability 
to represent perfect types with truth to nature, to portray 
the actions and attitudes of men and beasts without exaggera- 
tion or awkwardness, the sculptors of that period have not 
been surpassed, and hardly equalled, by the sculptors of 
any later time. And so, in a sense, the decadence of Greek 
sculpture may be said to begin with the fourth century. Yet 
progress was still possible, and a kind of progress which ap- 
peals strongly to the modern mind. 


Qualities- of Sculpture in the Fourth Ceniury. — In the 
fourth century the spirit which had united all Greeks against 
the Persian invader, which had gained the battles of Salamis 
and Plataea, whicla had brought about the foundation of the 
Delian League and the development of the Athenian Empire, 
had lost its power. There were still great patriots, among 
whom Demosthenes stands forth as the greatest, and military 
courage was by no means dead ; but in general the spirit 
was different. The state was less supreme, and the individual 
more important both in the speculations of the philosophers 
and in the conduct of their fellow-citizens. Something of 
the same change is seen in art. The sculptors still represent 
ideals, but the ideals are less grand and austere. The types 
of the greater and ekler deities harl been fixed in the fifth 
century. It is now the turn of the younger, less serious 
Olympians ; and the chief tyi)es of Hermes, Dionysus, 
Aphrodite belong to the fourth century. The 2ropOT;tions of 

the Imrnan figure hppfimp mnrp slendpr^ thp qttitj^idps mOFC 

eJegantbL-graceful. There is a tp,udpnfy t*i ward oste ntation, 
an apparent desire on the part of the artist to exhibit his 
skill, to make his own personality speak in his work, so that 
the public shall appreciate him. The individual becomes 
more promin ent. Emotio n or, to use the Greek word, 
•pathos begins to be expressed in sculpture ; the expression 
of the countenance is made_to_agree with the attitude of the 
figure, and attitudes are preferred which are appropriate to 
some emotion, whether violejit_or_gentle. The simple vigor 
of the Doryphorus is no longer universally popular. 

Scopas, Praxiteles, and Lysippus. — Such are the general 



qualities of the art of the fourth century, as distinguished 
from that of the preceding period. These quaUties do not 
appear in equal measure in all works of the century or in the 
works of all artists, but some of them are present in some 
degree everywhere. The three greatest sculptors of the 
century were Scopas, Praxiteles, and Lysippus. Scopas, 
apparently the eldest of the three, was a Parian, and worked 
chiefly in marble. The dates of his birth and death are 
unknown, but it is reasonable to suppose that he was born 
toward the end of the fifth century, since he was employed 
in the building of the temple of Athena Alea, at Tegea, 
probably soon after the destruction of the earlier temple, in 
394 B.C. He took part in the decoration of the Mausoleum, 
at Halicarnassus, which was not finished until after 349 B.C. 
No further dates connected with him are known ; we may 
therefore assume that he died early in the second half of the 
fourth century. Praxiteles, of Athens, also worked chiefly, 
though not exclusively, in marble. His earliest known work 
— a group of Apollo, Artemis, and Leto, at Mantinea — 
belongs to a time not far from 370 B.C., and there is no 
record or story that connects him with Alexander the Great, 
as- there would undoubtedly have been, if a meeting between 
the great sculptor and the great conqueror had been likely. 
Probably he was born not long after 400 and died before 325 
B.C. Lysippus, of Sicyon, worked chiefly in bronze. He 
was the favorite sculptor of Alexander, and is said to have 
lived at least until the founding of Cassandreia on the site 
of Potidaea, in 316 B.C. As he is known to have lived to a 
good old age, his birth must fall at least as early as 386 B.C. 
The three great sculptors were therefore contemporaries, 
though Lysippus was probably twenty years or more younger 
than Scopas. 

Scopas. — Scopas was famous for the emotional quality 
of his works, the intensity of expression in his faces. Two 
male heads ^ from the pediments of the temple of Athena 

' A head of a boar, a female head, and a female torso were also found at 
Tegea. The boar's head is from the pediment. The female head and torso 
do not, apparently, belong to each other or to the pediment. 



Alea, at Tegea, exhibit these quaHties in a marked degree; 
and since Pausanias says that Scopas was the architect of 
the temple and made some of the statues in the interior, it 
is probable that the pediment sculptures were also his work. 
In the eastern pediment the Calydonian Boarhunt was 
represented, in the western the combat of Achilles with 
Telephus. The extant heads (Fig. 68), of local (DoHana) 
marble, have the broad form, with relatively flat top, which 
we have seen in the works of Polyclitus, but they are not 
set straight upon the neck ; thej'- are turned backward or to 

Figure 68. — Heads from Tegea. National Museum, Athens. 
tike Denkmaler, I, pi. 35 ; from casts.) 


one side, or both. The eyes, wide open and shadowed by 
heavy, overhanging brows, gaze fervently upward. The 
mouths have slightly parted lips, and the whole expression 
of the faces indicates intense emotion. The study of these 
heads gives us an insight into the means employed by Scopas 
to represent facial expression. Many statues and heads 
are known, in which the general qualities of the sculpture of 
the fourth century are combined with some or all of the 
peculiarities of these heads — round, wide-open eyes, with 
rather thick under lids, set deep below heavy eyebrows 
which seem to extend beyond the outer corner of the eye, 


parted lips, and significant pose of the head, — and such 
works are attributed to Scopas or his school, or are said to 
show his influence. Most of them are copies, not originals, 
and it is diflicult to identify any of them with any of his 
recorded works; but their number and evident popularity 
show that his influence was great and was not limited to his 
own time. Among these are the Meleager of the Vatican,^ 
the Heracles of Lansdown House, an Athena in the Uffizi 
gallery at Florence,^ and a head of a goddess at Athens 
This last may possibly be an original by Scopas himself, 

Many works of Scopas are mentioned by ancient writers, 
Apparently his earlier years were spent in continental Greece, 
chiefly in Peloponnesus. About 350 B.C. he was at Hali 
carnassus, and the latter part of his life may have been passed 
in Asia Minor. The variety, and, in some measure, the 
qualities of his works may be indicated by a list of the titles 
of some of them. Among them were statues of Asclepius 
and Hygieia, Hecate, Heracles, Ares, Apollo, Aphrodite, a 
frenzied Bacchante, Leto, and Ortygia. One statue of 
Asclepius represented the god as a beardless youth. There 
was also a group of Eros, Himeros, and Pothos (Love, Desire, 
and Yearning), and a large group or relief representing 
Poseidon, Thetis, and Achilles, with Nereids, Tritons, and 
marine monsters. The three forms of love, Eros, Himeros, 
and Pothos, must have been distinguished by variety of 
facial expression; the Bacchante doubtless exhibited her 
frenzy by her expression of excitement and her violent action, 
and the composition containing Achilles, Thetis, Poseidon,, 
and their escort must have been filled with various fantastic 
forms in restless motion. Probably many later representa- 
tions of marine beings were inspired by this work. In spite 
of the uncertainty which attends the attribution of specific 
extant works to Scopas, it is evident that he was an artist 
of great power and originality. 

Praxiteles. The Hermes. — Among the statues in the temple 

> The best replica of the head is in the Villa Medici (Ecole francaise) at 
Rome. A good replica of head and torso is in the Fogg Art Museum at 
Cambridge, Mass. 

2 Furtwangler, Master-pieces of Greek Sculpture, p. 305, 


of Hera at Olympia Pausanias mentions a Hermes of stone 
(marble) carrying the infant Dionysus. He adds the remark 
"It is a work of Praxiteles." This .statue was found in the 
ruins of the temple, somewhat broken, but still in a remark- 
ably good state of preservation (Frontispiece). It is the only 
attested extant original work of Praxiteles, and is therefore 
the basis of all accurate stufly of his style. It is also the only 
attested original AA^ork of any of the most famous Greek sculp- 
tors, for the other extant originals are anonymous, and the 
famous works of the great artists are preserved only in copies. 
Copies of other works by Praxiteles have been identified, and 
comparison of these with the Hermes shows how far they are 
from reproducing the originals in their finer details. The 
difference is great, even when there is no difference of material, 
and certainly it must be still greater when, as is the case, for 
instance, with the famous works of Polyclitus and Lysippus, 
a bronze original is known onlj^ through a marble copy. 

The proportions of the Hermes are lighter than those of 
the Polyclitan canon, but are still powerful, and the muscles 
are well developed. The attitude is graceful and easy. The 
slight deviation from the upright posture, — the rhythmiCal^^ 
curve of the whole figure, — which is seen in the Polyclitan 
statues, has become much more pronounced. Such a curve 
would be quite unnatural if the figure stood alone, without 
support, but here Hermes rests his left arm, which holds the 
child, upon the stump of a tree, over which he has thrown 
his cloak. Praxiteles worked chiefly in marble, and there- 
fore his standing nude figures need supports. Bronze statues, 
being cast hollow, are much stronger in proportion to their 
weight than marble statues ; they can therefore do without 
the supports which for marble figures are almost indispen- 
sable, as is seen in the marble copies of bronze originals. 
Praxiteles showed great ability in making the supports 
serve an aesthetic, as well as a practical, purpose. In the 
case of the Hermes, the drapery is a real addition to the beauty 
of the work, lending \'ariety to the composition by the play of 
light and shadow in its folds. It falls in a perfectly natural 
and very graceful way over the stump, and is treated in a real- 


istic manner. The folds are not mere parallel grooves, 
divided by sharp lines, but they pass into each other in 
almost imperceptible curves, and the broader surfaces are 
broken by small, shallow depressions. Even the most elab- 
orate drapery of the fifth century fails to attain such per- 
fection as this, and the fine details mentioned are almost 
entirely wanting in the Roman copies of Greek statues of all 

In the figure of Hermes the accuracy of detail Is quite as 
great as in the drapery, though the difference between this 
and earlier work is less easily pointed out. The fine texture 
of the skin is even now, after centuries of exposure and of 
burial, remarkable. The head is a development of the 
Attic type of the fifth century, with relatively broad fore- 
head and narrow chin, as if to emphasize the intellectual, 
rather than the animal, nature. The forehead is divided by 
a horizontal groove near the middle of its height and an al- 
most triangular projection above the nose. The nose is 
strong, but not too broad, and is not absolutely straight. 
The eyes are shadowed by heavy brows, which are not, 
however, so heavy as those of the heads from Tegea and other 
heads ascribed to Scopas. The gaze is not fixed upon the 
infant Dionysus, but the eyes look beyond him, with a 
dreamy, almost pensive, expression. 

The hair presents an irregularly broken surface, formed by 
the short thick locks that project from the head, and the 
whole is left comparatively rough. In earlier works the 
hair appears as a layer of uniform thickness, divided by 
nearly parallel grooves, as in the Apollo from the western 
pediment at Olympia, or marked with circles and dots, as 
in the Harmodius by Critius and Nesiotes ; and the locks 
generally end in stiff, regular curls. Sometimes, as in some 
of the pediment figures at Olympia, the surface is left nearly 
smooth, in which case the details were no doubt added in 
color. In bronze works the locks are wrought in low relief, 
except when they are cast separately and attached, and 
marble copies of bronze works reproduce in some measure 
the appearance of the originals. In the Hermes there is no 



attempt to represent the individual hairs, but the effect of 
hair is produced by the avoidance of such an attempt. 
The general impression, not the reproduction, of hair is the 
artist's purpose. Whether Praxiteles invented this method, 

or not, cannot now be de- 
termined. It certainly is 
admirably carried out in 
the Hermes, and it entirely 
supplanted the earlier 

The statue of Hermes is 
an almost perfect work; 
the infant Dionysus is far 
less admirable. The head 
and body are much broken, 
but even so it is clear that 
the attitude, the action, and 
the forms are ti^o mature 
for a child of such small 
size. This cannot be ex- 
plained merely by the 
statement that the child is 
regarded as an accessory. 
The fact is that the suc- 
cessful rendering of infan- 
tile forms belongs to a later 

The Aphrodite of Cnidus. 
— The Hermes was not one 
of the most famous works 
of Praxiteles. Far more 
renowned were his statues 
of Eros, of Satyrs, and of Aphrodite; most famous of all 
was the Aphrodite of Cnidus. The best copy of this is in 
the Vatican (Fig. 69), a less excellent one in Munich. The 
figure has the same rhythmic curve seen in the Hermes, 
and the support is an integral part of the composition, for 
the urn beside the goddess indicates a bath, and thus accounts 

Figure 69. — Cnidian Aphrodite, 
after Praxiteles. The Vatican. (Brunn- 
Bruckmann, 371 ; from a cast.) 


for her nudity. Whether she has bathed and is lifting her 

garment to put it on or is letting it fall before bathing is 

uncertain. She stands in the glory of her beauty, without 

self-consciousness, shame, or coquetry. Here, as in the 

Hermes, the drapery and the 

hair are not smooth, like the 

skin, but are so treated as to 

indicate their texture. The 

dreamy look of the Hermes is 

made softer and more feminine 

by the narrowing of the eyes, 

which even in the Hermes are 

less round and wide open than 

in most earlier works. The 

Aphrodite of the Vatican is 

only a copy, but its superiority 

in grace, dignity, and purity 

to other statues of the nude 

Aphrodite, such as the "Capi- 

toline Venus" or the "Venus 

dei Medici," is evident at a 

glance. Yet hefe, as in the 

Hermes, human personality is 

present, and the first step 

toward the representation of 

human imperfections has been 


Satyrs. — Several types of 
Satyrs are clearly of Praxitelean 
origin, and among them none 
is more beautiful or preserved in 
more replicas than that which 
Hawthorne made famous in 
The Marble Faun (Fig. 70). Here the face shows the irre- 
sponsible nature of the woodland creature, and the attitude 
of easy grace has become a posture of careless indolence. 
The rhythmic curve of the body is again present, and the 
whole figure is inclined toward the support. Even greater 

Figure 70. — Satyr after 
Praxiteles. Capitoline Museum, 
Rome. (Brunn-Bruckmann, 


inclination toward the support is seen in another work of 
Praxiteles, the Apollo Sauroctonos (Lizard-slayer), the 
original of which was of bronze and therefore needed no 
support for purely practical reasons. Evidently Praxiteles 
wished to represent the standing figure in an attitude which 
would be impossible without a support. 

Eros. — Two statues of Eros by Praxiteles, one at Thespiae, 
the other at Parium, were especially famous in ancient times, 
but no copies of either have as yet been identified with cer- 
tainty. Many statues of Eros, as of Satyrs, exist which 
are certainly of Praxitelean origin, but whether they are 
copies of his works, or of works of his school, or are later 
adaptations, cannot in all cases be determined. His influ- 
ence endured throughout antiquity, and copies and adapta- 
tions of his works were always popular, even at times when 
the general tendency of art was rather toward greater realism 
than toward quiet and gentle sentiment. 

Reliefs from Mantinea. — Three marble slabs found at 
Mantinea have been identified with the aid of a brief remark 
of Pausanias as the decoration of the base of a group of 
statues by Praxiteles. On one slab Marsyas is represented 
playing the double flute before, the seated Apollo, while 
between them stands a Phrygian with a knife, ready to flay 
Marsyas for his presumption in daring to compete with 
Apollo in music. On the other slabs are figures of six Muses. 
The design is excellent and the execution good, though not 
by any means comparable to that of the Hermes. Probably 
the actual carving was entrusted to an assistant, though the 
design may well be attributed to Praxiteles himself, and 
affords the only known example of his decorative work. The 
calm dignity of Apollo is admirably contrasted with the 
excited action of his silvan opponent. The Muses, with 
their graceful draperies and varied poses, form an appropri- 
ate setting for the well-composed central group. 

Among the very numerous recorded works of Praxiteles, 
some of which were of bronze, are statues of various deities, 
of nymphs and maenads, and of the famous courtesan Phryne. 
The distinguishing qualities of his works were grace, elegance, 


exquisite workmanship, quiet sentiment, and self-restraint, 
in all of which he shows himself as the legitimate successor 
of the Attic school of the fifth century. In the works of his 
imitators these qualities sometimes degenerate into weakness, 
sentunentality, or academic cor- 

Lysippiis. — Of Lysippus, the 
youngest of the three most fa- 
mous sculptors of the fourth cen- 
tury, Pliny ^ says : " His chief 
contributions to the art of sculp- 
ture are said to consist in his 
vivid rendering of the hair, in 
making the heads smaller than 
the older artists had done, and 
the bodies slimmer and with less 
flesh, thus increasing the appar- 
ent height of his figures. There 
is no word in Latin for the canon 
of symmetry {avfinerpia) which 
he was so careful to preserve, 
bringing innovations which had 
never been thought of before into 
the square canon of the older ar- 
tists, and he often said that the 
difference between himself and 
them was that they represented 
men as they were, and he as they 
seemed to be. His chief charac- 
teristic is extreme delicacy of ex- 
ecution, even in the smallest de- 

The Apoxyomenos. Agios. — No certainly original work 
by Lysippus is extant, and if his works were all of bronze, 
as most of them certainly were, any existing marble copies 
must be very imperfect reproductions. Pliny mentions a 
statue of a man scraping himself (apoxyomenos) by Lysippus, 
1 XXXIV, 65 (translated by K. Jex-Blake). 

FiGCKE 71. — Apoxyo- 
menos. The Vatican. (Brunn- 
Bruckmann, 281.) 



which was very popular in Rome, and a marble statue now 
in the Vatican has long been regarded as a copy of the lost 
bronze (Fig. 71). This statue, which is of unusually fine 
Roman workmanship, exhibits all the qualities attributed by 
Pliny to the works of Lysippus. The head is small and set 
on a long, slender neck, the hair is admirably and freely 
rendered, the wrists and ankles are slender, and the propor- 
tions slighter than the Polyclitan canon. 
In 1897 a series of marble statues was 
found at Delphi by the French excava- 
tors, which commemorated a certain 
Daochos, of Pharsalus, and his family. 
Inscriptions found many years ago at 
Pharsalus show that a similar series, but 
probably of bronze, existed there, and 
that one statue at least, that of Agias, 
was by Lysippus. The statues once 
at Pharsalus are lost, but the marble 
statue of Agias at Delphi is well pre- 
served (Fig. 72), and it has been as- 
sumed that this is a copy of the bronze 
by Lysippus, which once existed at 
Pharsalus. Here we find a figure more 
slender than the Polyclitan canon, with 
no support (which has been taken as an 
indication that a bronze original was 
copied), and with eyes which resemble 
those of the Tegean heads attributed 
to Scopas. The hair is not carefully 
wrought, and indeed the statue as a 
whole is not of very fine workmanship. The inscriptions 
from Pharsalus and from Delphi are not quite identical, and 
the fact that the Pharsalian inscription ascribes two more 
victories to Agias than the Delphian may show that the 
statues at Delphi were set up earlier than those at Pharsalus, 
in which case the Delphian statues cannot be copies of the 
others.^ At any rate, it is not certain that the Agias has 

' See P. Wolters, Sitzungsberichte d. k. Bayerischen Akademie, 1913, iv. 

Figure 72 . — 
Statue of Agias. Del- 
phi. (Bulletin, de Corr. 
HelUn. XXIII, pi. xi.) 


any connection with Lysippus, though its general appearance 
is such as to agree fairly well with Pliny's words and with 
other statements by ancient writers. The Apoxyomenos, on 
the other hand, exhibits a scientific knowledge of muscular 
anatomy which did not exist in Greece until about 300 B.C. 
It may be a copy after Lysippus, but in that case the copyist 
has added something of his own. 

Portraits of Alexander. — The material available for a 
study of the style of Lysippus is clearly of uncertain value. 
His brother Lysistratus is said by Pliny to have made plaster 
casts from human faces, and therefore it has been assumed 
that Lysippus was a realist. But in the fourth century B.C. 
what would now be called realism did not exist. The quali- 
ties ascribed by Pliny and others to Lysippus are seen in 
many works which are properly assigned to the fourth 
century, but it is as yet impossible to ascribe any of them 
to Lysippus himself with certainty. His works were very 
numerous, among them statues of gods and heroes, many 
athlete statues, an allegorical figure of Kairos (Opportunity), 
numerous portraits of Alexander and of other persons, a 
group representing Alexander and his companions at the 
battle of the Granicus, and another group of Alexander hunt- 
ing lions. Many portraits of Alexander exist, but which of 
them are copies after Lysippus is uncertain. Since he was 
Alexander's favorite portrait sculptor, it may well be that 
some of the more idealized portraits, such as one in Munich, 
are to be ascribed to' him. Works tentatively ascribed to 
Lysippus and his school are many, among them the seated 
Hermes in Naples, and the "Praying Boy" in Berlin. The 
over-muscular Farnese Heracles in Naples and its replica in 
the Pitti palace in Florence are probably adaptations, rather 
than copies, of an original by Lysippus. That he was an 
artist of originality and genius we know from the state- 
ments of ancient writers, and it is tempting to ascribe to 
him many works of the fourth century which show slender 
proportions, small heads, and lively action combined with 
qualities not too similar to those of works ascribed to Prax- 
iteles or Scopas. 


Other Sculptors of the Fourth Century. — Other famous 
sculptors of the fourth centun' were Euphranor (who was 
also a painter), Bryaxis, Leochares, and Thrasjinedes. 
The last named made a chryselephantine statue of Asclepius 
for the sanctuary of Epidaurus, which represented the god 
of healing as a dignified, draped, seated figure, with a coun- 
tenance resembling that of Zeus. A famous work by Bryaxis 
represented Ganymedes carried aloft by the eagle of Zeus. 
A copy of this has been recognized in a marble group in the 
Vatican, which, though of small size and mediocre workman- 
ship, shows how the artist represented the youthful figure, 
with fluttering garment, gazing upward toward the bright 
Ohinpus where the love of Zeus awaits him. Timotheus 
is known to have made the acroteria and models for some 
of the other sculptures of the temple of Asclepius at Epi- 
daurus, about .37.5 B.C. The remains of the sculptures of 
this temple comprise acroteria, representing Xereids mounted 
on horses, and parts of the pediment groups, which repre- 
sented battles of Greeks with Amazons and Lapithae with 
Centaurs. The forms are full of life and vigor, and the 
clinging, floating draperies remind one of the balustrade of 
the temple of Athena Xike. 

The Mausoleum. — Ancient writers mention other works 
of Bryaxis, Leochares, and Timotheus, and Pliny says they 
worked with Scopas at the Mausoleum at Halicarnassus.^ 
This marveUous building was richly decorated with sculpture, 
the remains of which are now in the British ^Museum. They 
comprise two colossal statues (of ^lausolus and liis wife 
Artemisia) ; several other statues, some of which are 
equestrian ; a colossal chariot with four horses ; several hons ; 
se-\'eral panels with reliefs ; many slabs of a fine frieze repre- 
senting Greeks and Amazons; and fragments of two other 
friezes, one of which represented Greeks and Centaurs, the 
other a chariot race. The statues of Mausolus and Artemisia 
are evidently real portraits, but without undue emphasis. 

' Instead of Timotheus, Mtruvius mentions Praxiteles, perhaps because 
popular legend associated the three greatest sculptors of the age with this 
building, which was one of the wonders of the world. 


upon individual peculiarities. Both are dignified and im- 
pressive, but that of Mausolus is the better preserved and 
of better \\i)rkmanship. The tyi)e of face is not Greek, but 
a. Greek artist has produced an admirable portrait of the 
thoughtful and vigorous Carian ruler. The work of the 
smaller friezes is excellent, delicate, and charming, but these 
fric/i>s exist onh- in fragments. The Amazon frieze, although 
not entirely preser\cd, is the most extensive extant relief of 
the fourth century (Fig. 7li). In friezes of tlie fifth century 
{e.g. that from Phigaleia, page U)")) the figures are close to- 

FniUius 7:i. — From the Fiioao of the Mmisoteum. British Museum. 

getluT, almost crowded; here they are loosely placed, in 
groups of varying nmnbers. Tliere is great variety in 
costumes, weapons, and attitudes, the drapery is admirabh' 
designed, and the figiu-es are more slender and graceful than 
tliose of earlier reliefs. The faces, too, have more expression 
than is seen in reliefs of the fifth century. The use of float- 
ing drapery to fill void spaces is noticeable. In execution 
and design the parts of the frieze are not uniform, and 
attempts haNc therefore been made to distribute tlie slabs 
nnumg the fovir artists mentioned by Pliny, but tlieir results 
have not met witli universal acceptance. That many of the 



figures show at least the influence of Scopas seetns certain. 
In general, it is clear that the traditions and methods of the 
Attic school of art are followed in this frieze, which exhibits 
the best qualities of decorative sculpture at the middle of the 
fourth century. 

The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus. — The temple of 
Artemis at Ephesus was burned in 356 B.C. and almost im- 

FiGDRB 74. — Sarcophagus of the Mourners. Constantinople. 

mediately rebuilt with great magnificence. Pliny says that 
one of its thirty-six sculptured columns was by Scopas. 
Only one sculptured drum from this temple is well enough 
preserved to give a good idea of its style. Here the quiet 
grace of the figures recalls the style of Praxiteles, though the 
open lips and passionate eyes make us think of Scopas and 
the heads from Tegea. The subject of the relief on this 
drum is apparently Alcestis between Hermes Psychopompus 
and Thanatos, the armed and winged personification of 


death. Another work in which the general qualities of the 
art of Praxiteles are joined with such eyes as are associated 
with Scopas is the beautiful and dignified Demeter from Cni- 
dus in the British Museum. Such works, which it is as yet 
impossible to 
assign to any 
definite artist, 
show that the 
traditions and 
practices of the 
Attic school and 
the influence of 
Scopas (who was 
himself strongly 
influenced by 
the Attic school) 
were powerful in 
Asia Minor in 
the fourth cen- 

The Sar- 
cophagus of the 
Mourners. — An 
exquisite Attic 
work of about 
the middle of 
the fourth cen- 
tury is a sar- 
found, with 
several others, 
in a tomb at 
Sidon. It has the form of a small Ionic temple, between the 
columns of which are draped female figures in pensive atti- 
tudes, from which the name " Sarcophagus of the Mourners " is 
derived (Fig. 74) . Above, on the edge of the roof, is a broad 
frieze of relief representing a funeral procession. In the gables 
are seated figures in attitudes of grief. Below the columns 


75. — Monument of 




hunting scenes in low relief decorate the base. The female 
figures between the columns remind one of the Muses on the 
Praxitelean reliefs from Mantinea and of statues of Muses 
to which these are related. In their varied, yet similar, 
attitudes, their graceful draperies, and their restrained 
expression of grief they are especially charming. 

Attic Gravestones. — The Attic gravestones form an in- 
teresting and instructive series, extending through the fourth 
century. The earlier among them, such as the monument of 
Hegeso (Fig. 75) or that of Dexileos, who was killed in battle 
in 394 B.C., retain some of the qualities of the sculptures of 
the Parthenon, while the later reliefs show the influence of 
Praxiteles, Scopas, and Lysippus. The subject of these 
reliefs is generally a scene of family life, mistress and maid, 
mother and daughter, father and son, husband and wife, 
or two friends clasping hands. The grief of parting is sym- 
bolized, rather than expressed, by recalling the beloved 
presence of the dead. In execution these reliefs vary; some 
are exquisite, others almost clumsy ; but even those that 
are most carelessly wrought are beautiful in their restrained 



The A lexander Sarcophagus. — The conquests of Alex- 
ander led to the formation of semi-Hellenic kingdoms in 
Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt, and removed the centres of 
Greek art from Greece to Alexandria, Pergamon, Ephesus, 
Tralles, and Rhodes. Even before the end of the fourth 
century, a new spirit begins to appear. The new art adopts 
new methods, abandons the self-restraint of earlier times, 
appeals more directly to love of splendor, to the emotions, 
and to personal vanity. The beginnings of the new spirit 
are visible in the latest of the fine sarcophagi found at Sidon, 
called the Alexander sarcophagus, because Alexander's 
portrait appears upon it (Fig. 76, the person at the extreme 

Figure 76. — Alexander Sarcophagus. Constantinople. 



left). This sarcophagus is especially important because its 
coloring is exceptionally well preserved. Light blue and red, 
yellow, and brown predominate, though violet and other 
colors are employed. On one side and one end, and also in 
the gables, are scenes of battle in high relief, on the remaining 
end a panther hunt, and on the remaining side a lion hunt. 
The mouldings are exceedingly rich. The top, in the form 

of a tiled roof, is adorned with 
antefixes and gargoyles, and 
couchant lions guard its corners. 
The faces of the chief persons 
represented are evidently por- 
traits, and details of various 
kinds, especially the Persian cos- 
tumes, are given with realistic 
accuracy. Clearly the combats 
represented are not merely typ- 
ical, but are real battles. Yet 
these real battles are repre- 
sented, not as they actually 
happened, but in the form of 
typical combats. The action is 
lively and crowded, with occa- 
sional reminiscences of the friezes 
of Phigaleia and of the Mauso- 
leum. This sarcophagus is a 
brilliant work, one of the best- 
preserved and most beautiful 
monuments of Greek art. It 
still breathes the spirit of Attic 
idealism, but that spirit is beginning to be affected by the 
new conditions ; the rulers of the great kingdoms of the earth, 
their struggles dnd their victories, are beginning to occupy 
the minds and employ the talents of the Greek artists. 

Survival of Earlier Spirit. — Some works of the Hellenistic 
period are hardly to be distinguished from the products of 
the Attic school of the fourth century, and in many the 
earlier spirit survives. So the impressive Themis from the 

Figure 77. — Demosthenes, 
The Vatican. 


temple at Rhamnus, by Chaerostratus, might, but for the 
treatment of the folds of the garment about the neck and 
breast, be a work by a contemporary of Praxiteles. Even 

the statue of Demos- _ __ 

thenes in the Vatican 
(Fig. 77), a copy of a 
bronze statue by Po- 
lyeuctus, which was 
made in accordance 
with a decree passed in 
280-279 B.C., is full of 
the spirit of the fourth 
century, in spite of the 
new care with which the 
skin, the muscles, and 
consequently the ex- 
pression of the face are 

Nike of Samothrace. — 
A beautiful work of the 
early part of the Hellen- 
istic period is the Vic- 
tory (Nike) from Samo- 
thrace, now in the 
Louvre (Fig. 78). It 
was probably erected by 
Demetrius Poliorcetes 
not many years after 
his victory off Cyprus 
in 306 B.C. The splen- 
did figure stands on the 
fore part of a ship, a 
symbol of the naval 
victory, her great, wings 
half spread, and her garment blown by the wind. Origi- 
nally one hand held a slender trumpet to her lips, and the 

FiGUBE 78 — Nike from Samothrace. 
The Louvre Pans (Brumi-Bruckmann, 85 

I The hands are incorrectly restored. A replica of the statue is at Kuole 
Park, Sevenoaks, England. 


other a light cross, the stylis of a ship, which served as a 
trophy. Unfortunately head and arms are gone. In this 
statue the great qualities of Scopas, Praxiteles, and Lysippus 
,are blended. There is vigor of form and posture, but no 
I exaggeration, realism in details, but idealism in conception. 
The execution is somewhat uneven, as is usual in works of 
such colossal size, but in the parts which were intended to be 
exposed to view it is excellent and even exquisite. The idea 
of motion is admirably convened by the treatment of the 
drapery, which is here not a mere accessory, nor even, as 
in the sculptures of the Parthenon, a part of the figure which 
it discloses, but has an independent value, texture, and 
imjjortance of its own. Comparison with the Nike of 
Paeonius (page 84) shows how greatly the treatment of drapery 
had advanced since the fifth century. Symbolism and a 
tendency toward the picturesque are two striking qualities 
of Hellenistic sculpture. Both are present in some measure 
in this figure, which stood high up at the head of a valley, 
gazing down upon the sea where the victory it commemorated 
had been won. 

The Niobe Group. — An interesting series of statues which 
was formerly attributed to the fourth century is the "Niobe 
Group," now in Florence,^ which represents Niobe, her 
children slain or being slain by Apollo and Artemis, and an 
aged attendant. The extant statues are in various attitudes 
of life and death, and appeal strongly to the emotions of the 
beholder. The most pathetic figures are those of Niobe and 
her youngest daughter. Here the grace and sentiment of 
Praxiteles are combined with the violent motion and passion 
of Scopas. A satisfactory arrangement of the group seems 
impossible except in a garden or some similar place, and the 
group itself is picturesque in character. For these reasons 
it must be assigned to the Hellenistic period, though the 

' Pliny, XXXVI, 28, speaks of "the dying children of Niobe in the temple 
of Sosias" at Rome, and is doubtful whether they should be ascribed to 
Scopas or to Praxiteles. Probably the group was brought from Asia Minor 
in .35 B.C. The statues in Florence are not the originals, but ancient copies. 
In the Vatican is a replica of one of the daughters, the work of which is 
finer than that of the figures in Florence. An inferior replica of the peda- 
gogue is in the Louvre. 


individual figures are conceived and executed very much in 
the spirit of the Attic art of the fourth century. 

Works which show the Survival of Earlier Traditions. — 
Many works of the Hellenistic period show the survival of 
earlier traditions, and for that reason several among them 
have been assigned by some scholars to the fourth century. 
Such is the famous Apollo of the Belvedere, the original of which 
(for the marble statue in the Vatican is a Roman copy of a 
Greek bronze original) has been ascribed, on account of cer- 
tain resemblances to the Ganymedes (page 120), to Leochares. 
But the almost theatrical self-consciousness of the god's 
attitude and his exaggerated coiffure make it more probable 
that the statue is a work of the third century, which is then 
also the date of the "Diana of Versailles," now in the Louvre. 
Naturally the pupils of the great artists of the fourth century 
produced in the third century numerous works similar to 
those of their masters, and in later times the works of the 
great masters were deliberately copied and imitated. It is 
therefore often almost impossible to distinguish between 
works of the fourth century, works of the third century in 
which earlier traditions are preserved, and later adaptations 
or copies of works of the fourth century. So the so-called 
Eubouleus, a marble head found at Eleusis, has been claimed 
as an original work of Praxiteles, and the famous Aphrodite 
of Melos (Fig. 79) has even been considered a work of the 
fifth century, though both are in all probability Hellenistic. 
With the Aphrodite of Melos ("Venus of Milo") was found 
an inscription bearing the artist's signature of Agesander from 
Antioch on the Maeander, a city which was founded in 281 
B.C. Unfortunately the inscription has disappeared and its 
connection with the statue cannot be absolutely proved, 
otherwise no date before 281 could be thought of. However, 
since the head is clearly Praxitelean and the drapery recalls 
work of the fifth century, it is natural to assign the statue 
to a time when the styles of the fifth and fourth centuries 
might readily be combined ; that is, to some time after the 
fourth century ; but whether the third century or later can 
hardly be determined without definite evidence. The upper 



part of the statue is of finer marble and more finely -WTOught 
than the lower (draped) part. A left hand holding an apple, 
and part of an arm, were found with the statue and may belong 
to it, though they now appear to be of inferior workmanship. 
This general type was employed for representations of Vic- 
tory, as well as of Aphrodite, whether alone or with Ares. 

How this particular statue should 
be restored, is not certain. The 
right hand probably held the 
drapery, and the left arm rested 
upon something about as high 
as the shoulder of the goddess, 
perhaps a column, perhaps a 
shield or a mirror which rested 
on a low cippus. The type was 
probably not invented, but only 
adapted, by the sculptor of this 
statue which is, by reason of its 
excellent preservation and its 
great beauty, deservedly one of 
the most widely known and gen- 
erally admired works of ancient 

Pergamon^^^ The statues. just 
discussed exhibit the survival of 
earlier traditions. Other works 
show a different spirit. At Per- 
gamon, Attains I (241-197 B.C.) 
established a powerful kingdom 
by his victories over Galatians, 
tribes of Gauls who had settled 
in Asia. In commemoration of these victories he caused 
many works of art to be created by several sculptors, the 
chief of whom was Epigonus. Parts of two large groups 
are preserved in marble copies. To one group belong 
the Dying Gaul (formerly called the Dying Gladiator), 
in the Capitoline Museum, and the Gaul killing him- 
self after having killed his wife, in the National Museum 

Figure 79. — Aphrodite from 
Melos. The Louvre, Paris. 


in Rome. These are somewhat above life size. Of the other 
group at least ten figures exist.^ They are about three feet 
high, and this (two ells) was also the size of the originals, 
which were of bronze. The entire group, or groups, repre- 
sented battles of Gods and Giants, Greeks and Amazons, 
Greeks and Persians, and Pergamenes and Galatians. The 
whole number of figures was very large, perhaps about one 
hundred. The extant figures all represent defeated com- 
batants. Giants, Amazons, Persians, or Galatians. In style 
they resemble closely the Dying Gaul and the group in the 
National Museum. All are realistic in treatment. The 
Gauls are distinguished by their mustaches, their stiff, coarse ^ 
hair, and their torques; the Giants are wild and unkempt, — 
and these two races have coarser, rougher skin than the more 
delicate Amazons and Persians. In the Dying Gaul the 
blood streaming from his wounded side is especially realistic. 
In details the larger figures are superior to the smaller, and 
their size also helps to make them more impressive ; but the 
style is the same in all. Yig2£Lj££MES£yfc,Md emotion, rather 

than beauty, are the chief characteristics of^these works. 
They lack the self-restraint and the sense of artistic fitness < 
which ennoble the works of the fifth and fourth centuries. 
A few other works of this school are extant. 

The Great Altar. — Eumenes II (197-159 B.C.) erected at 
Pergamon a great altar to Zeus and Athena, a nearly square 
structure, each side of which was more than one hundred 
feet long. Its base was decorated by a great frieze over 
seven feet (2.30 m.) high, and a much smaller frieze adorned 
the upper part of the structure. Many fragments of the 
great frieze are now in Berlin (Fig. 80). The subject is the 
battle of the Gods and the Giants, which no doubt symbolized 
the conflict of the Pergamenes with the fierce Galatians. 
It is no new subject in Greek art, but it is here treated with 
astonishing variety and fertility of invention, and in such 
high relief that parts of the figures are carved entirely in the 

' Four in Naples, three in Venice, and one each in Aix (in Provence) , 
Paris, and Rome. They are of coarse-grained Asiatic marble, and were 
probably made at Pergamon, perhaps before the bronzes were sent to Athens 
as a gift from King Attains. 



round. The forms of human beings and of beasts are mingled 
in the confusion of combat, for the eagle of Zeus, the panther 
of Dionysus, the serpent of Athena, and the dogs of Hecate 
take part in the fray ; marine animals accompany the deities 
of the sea ; Cybele is seated on her lion ; and some of the 
Giants have writhing, biting serpents in place of legs, while 
others are winged, and still others are hybrid forms of men 
and beasts. The gods are so arranged that kindred deities 

Figure 80. — "Athena Group" from the Great Altar at Pergamon. BerUn. 
(Brunu-Bruckmann, 4S4.) 

are brought near each other, and the groups are so connected 
that the action appears to be continuous throughout the 
entire frieze. 

The types of the gods are not new, but their salient points 
are emphasized and heightened by action. The figure of 
Apollo has, in pose at least, a strong resemblance to the 
Apollo of the Belvedere. The divine faces have no heavenly 
calm, but are full of animation and excitement, while the 
faces of the giants express hatred, fear, and pain with utter 
lack of self-restraint, as befits their wild, insurgent nature. 


The mighty muscles of gods and giants ahke are strained to 
the utmost in their portentous struggle. Here, in this 
symbohc combat, reahsm is even more apparent than in the 
Dying Gaul, as if the sculptors thought that in these super-^C 
human figures realistic details could be exaggerated without 
ceasing to be lifelike. This great frieze is full of life an d vigo r, 
a wonderful and brilliant monument of inventive ability and 
skilful execution, yet it is colossal rather than grand, start- 
ling rather than impressive, wonderful rather than bet^utiful. 

Picturesque Relief. — Of the smaller frieze much less is pre- 
served. It represented the myth of Telephus and the foun- 
dation of Pergamon. It is a much higher relief than the 
frieze of the Parthenon, with which it may be compared in 
size, as well as in the position it occupied on the building. 
The most remarkable thing about it is the picturesque 
background. In some early reliefs, of the sixth century, 
the background is indicated, and the landscape plays a part 
in some Assyrian reliefs, but in the classical Hellenic reliefs 
the figures stand out from a plain surface. Here trees, build- 
ings, and the like appear as in a picture. 

Reliefs with picturesque backgrounds were also sometimes 
carved on panels which were fastened to walls for decorative 
purposes, as we hang pictures on our walls to-day. Where 
this custom originated is not quite certain, perhaps in Alex- 
andria. It seems to be, at any rate, of Hellenistic origin, 
and was carried, with many other Hellenistic practices, to 
Rome, where it was apparently further developed. . 

Damophon. — A few words should be devoted to Damo- 
phon of Messenia, an artist of the second centm-y B.C. Frag- 
ments of a group of colossal statues found at Lycosura, in 
Arcadia, are all that now remains of his works. He is not 
under the influence of such artists as those who created the 
great frieze at Pergamon, nor does he continue the traditions 
of Praxiteles and his contemporaries. His feeling for texture 
and hair, his skill in execution and design, and his boldness 
of conception are admirable. His works are effective and 
powerful, with something of the quality of modern impres- 
sionist works. He seems to have formed no school and had 



no successors ; but the discovery of his works, now that his 
date has been determined, proves that the art of the Hellen- 
istic age was not confined to the development of realism on 
the one hand and the imitation of earlier works on the other. 
-^ , The Laocodn Group. — Whether the sculptors who worked 

at Pergamon 
were themselves 
Pergamenes, or 
whether the 
school which 
they represent 
was developed 
at Pergamon or 
elsewhere may 
never be known. 
Possibly it may 
have been in its 
origin a Rhodian 
school, but at 
any rate its most 
brilliant work 
was done at Per- 
gamon. Its in- 
fluence was great 
and long con- 
tinued. This is 
seen in the fa- 
mous Laocoon 
group now in the 
(Brunn- Vatican. Pliny 
gives the names 










^44 . ... --ili-^. . W" 


FiGUEE 81.- 

- The Laocoon. The Vatican. 
Bruckmann, 236.) 

of the sculptors of this group, and inscriptions found at Rhodes 
fix their date not far from 40 B.C. They were, as Pliny tells us, 
three Rhodians, Agesander, Athanodorus, and Polydorus. 
This group (Fig. 81) is especially famous because it was found 
at a time (1506) when there was the greatest interest in 
ancient art, it was the only well-preserved group of ancient 
realistic sculpture then known, the names of its authors were 


known, the subject is treated by Virgil, it was exhibited in a 
prominent place, and at a later time it was chosen by Lessing 
to typify plastic art as opposed to poetry in his essay entitled 
Laocoon. As a work of art it is undoubtedly impressive, but 
it hardly merits its great fame. The sons are too small for. 
their apparent age, the serpents are inert and lifeless, the! 
attitude of Laocoon himself is unnatural, and his expression < 
is rather that of bodily pain than of the horror, mingled wiii^ 
physical exertion, which the situation demands. Yet the 
group shows skill in composition and execution. The right 
arm of Laocoon is wrongly restored ; it should be bent so 
that the hand touches the back of the head, and a similar 
change should be made in the right arm of the younger son. 
These corrections make the group more harmonious. In 
general style this group resembles the great frieze from Per- 
gamon, and the head of Laocoon is almost identical with that 
of one of the giants of the frieze, while his attitude seems to be 
derived from that of another giant. 

Graeco-Roman Sculpture. — The Laocoon is a purely 
Hellenistic work, but its date is about that of the death of 
Julius Caesar, and it was soon brought to Rome, where it 
stood in the palace of the Emperor Titus. The great group 
which goes by the name of the "Farnese Bull" was a work of 
Apollonius and Tauriscus, of Tralles, and was brought by 
Asinius Pollio from Rhodes to Rome. Many other works 
of Greek sculpture adorned the imperial city, and Greek 
artists flocked thither. Their productions were in great 
measure copies and adaptations of earlier Greek works. 
Sometimes the originals can be identified {e.g. the Dory- 
phorus of Polyclitus, page 92) and the statues are evidently 
intended as accurate copies, sometimes it is impossible to tell 
whether a statue is a real copy or an adaptation of an earlier 
type, sometimes it is clear that a famous type has been changed 
to suit the taste of the times or of the sculptor's patron. Works 
of this kind are Greek, to be sure, but they were made for Ro- 
mans, and often made at Rome ; they may therefore be called 
Graeco-Roman. Such are the Capitoline Venus (which 
may even be a portrait of a Roman lady in the guise of 



Venus) and the famous Venus dei Medici, both of which are 
clearly derived from the Cnidian Aphrodite of Praxiteles, 
whose divinity has become all too human in these later 
works. The "Farnese Heracles," signed by an Athenian 
named Glycon, reproduces a type invented by Lysippus, 
but exaggerates and debases it. About the middle of the 

first century B.C. a Greek artist/. 
Arcesilas, made a statue of Venus 1 
Genetdxfor the forum of Julius /I 
Caesar, and by the aid of coins 
and several extant copies, the 
appearance of this statue is 
known (Fig. 82). The head, 
folds of drapery, and general pose 
recall the style of the fifth century 
B.C., but various details show that 
it was not a copy, but an adapta- 
tion, of an earlier work, possibly 
the "Aphrodite in the Gardens" 
of Alcamenes (page 94). 

A Graeco-Roman sculptor of 
the first century B.C. was Pasit- 
eles, an Italian Greek, who re- 
ceived the Roman citizenship in 
87 B.C. in common with his com- 
patriots. His works were nu- 
merous, and he wrote a book 
on sculpture. Of his works 
nothing remains, or none has 
been identified, but works are 
extant by Stephanus, his pupil, 
and by Menelaus, a pupil of Stephanus. These are imitations 
of the style of the Argive school of the fifth century B.C., with 
archaic traits that indicate the time just before Polyclitus. A 
good example of these works is the group in Naples, prob- 
ably correctly called Electra and Orestes. The postures are 
simple, the treatment of hair and drapery for the most part 
archaic, but the proportions are more like those adopted by 

Figure 82. — "Venus Gene- 
trix." The Louvre, Paris 
(Brunn-Bruekmann, 473.) 


Lysippus than those of the early Argive school, and the upper 
part of the drapery of Electra betrays the influence of the 
fourth century or even of later periods. Evidently this is not 
a copy, but a conscious attempt to reproduce in a new work 
the effect of earlier and simpler art. The number of such 
works still existing shows that they were popular in their 
day. Besides the works of the school of Pasiteles, there 
are many others which show that imitation of archaic sim- 
plicity was popular in Rome. So the Neo-Attic reliefs, as 
they are called, reproduce more or less exactly the style of 
Attic works of the fifth century ; but no one ancient work is 
copied, and the artists are not careful to be consistent. 
Figures in archaic drapery, are seen in conjunction with 
buildings which are recognized as structures of the imperial 

Much of the sculpture produced at Rome for Romans 
was the work of Greek artists and continued the tra- 
ditions of Greek art. Such works exerted a powerful 
influence upon Roman art; yet Roman sculpture, though 
it is developed from . that of Greece, has a history of its 

Late Greek Art in Asia. — In the eastern part of the Greek 
world, in Asia Minor and the regions affected by the conquests 
of Alexander, Greek art came in contact with oriental tra- 
ditions and tastes. Greek influence extended to India, 
where the type of Buddha is of Hellenistic origin, and even 
in Chinese and Japanese sculpture its effect is seen. But 
Greek art itself was profoundly influenced in Asia by oriental 
taste and practices. It became more conventional, and the 
figures in reliefs became more and more mere parts of a dec- 
orative pattern, while at the same time purely ornamental 
carvings became more popular and less simple. It is from 
the late Hellenistic art of western Asia that Byzantine art 
derived many of its motives and much of its inspiration. A 
brilliant example of late Hellenistic art in Asia is a great 
sarcophagus from Sidamara (now in Constantinople), which, 
with its overloaded ornamentation, its obvious reminiscences 
of Greek art, and its confused and tasteless magnificence 



Figure 83. — Sarcophagus from Sidamara. Constantinople. 

(Fig. 83), shows how far from the purity of Hellenic art the 
Hellenistic sculpture of Asia Minor had departed at the 
time when the sarcophagus was made, in the third century 
after Christ. 


Immigration in Italy. The Etruscans. — About the eleventh 
century B.C. a great movement of tribes and peoples took 
place in southeastern Europe and the regions to the East 
and North. The Dorian Invasion in Greece was a part of 
this movement, but the disturbance and the change of 
population were by no means limited to Greece. New 
peoples came into Italy also, but they found no rich and well- 
developed civilization in possession of the land, nor were 
they themselves, perhaps, so ready for civilization as the in- 
vaders of Greece. At any rate, the progress of civilization in 
Greece was more rapid than in Italy. But the descendants 
of the invaders of Italy were destined to rule over a large part 
of the earth, and for that reason, even if there were no other, 
their early history and the condition of art among them may 
well prove of interest. 

The newcomers were of two distinct races, the Etruscans 
and the Italic tribes afterwards known as Samnites, Oscans, 
Umbrians, Volscians, and so forth. In course of time the 
Etruscans spread over the eastern part of the valley of the 
Po, up the Reno, over the Apennines, and throughout the 
whole of Tuscany, from the Arno to the Tiber, and even be- 
yond. The Italic tribes spread along the eastern coast of 
the peninsula, hardly, if at all, crossing the Apennines until 
they reached the head-waters of the Tiber. For several 
centuries there was little art of any kind, and virtually no 
sculpture, either among the Etruscans or the Italic tribes. 
The latter, indeed, never developed an independent art, 
though it is not unlikely that some imitations of Greek work, 
which are commonly ascribed to Etruscan or even to imported 



Greek workmen, may have been made by men of Italic 
descent. The only pre-Roman sculpture in Italy (apart 
from that which is Greek) that calls for more than a word 
of comment is Etruscan sculpture, and to this we shall con- 
fine our discussion. 

During the first centuries of their life in Italy the Etruscans 
paid little attention to art, and sculpture properly so called 
did not appear among them until after they had come in 
contact with the Greeks and Phoenicians, that is, until the 
seventh, or possibly even the sixth, century B.C. Naturally 
the Etruscans imitated the works of these more advanced 
peoples. But Etruscan sculpture did not develop consist- 
ently and rationally. It remained always, in some measure, 
an imported art, and apparently changes or differences in 
style were due to accident, to the coming of some new master 
from abroad or of some new specimen of foreign workman- 
ship, rather than to the gradual progress of a national art. 

Phoenician and Greek Influence. — In the latter part of 
the seventh century and the early part of the sixth, Phoeni- 
cian, that is, Carthaginian, influence was strong among the 
Etrurians, who were for a time political allies of Carthage. 
But in the sixth century the Greeks got the upper hand, and 
from that time Greek influence was predominant. Even 
before that, the Etruscans had adopted a modified form of 
the Greek alphabet, a fact which shows strong Greek influ- 
ence, probably felt chiefly through trade. Greek imports 
continue to arrive in Etruria throughout the entire period of 
Etruscan national life, though they are less after the decadence 
ot Athens in the third century. In the third and second 
centuries the Greek influence felt by the Etruscans was ex- 
erted chiefly by the Greek states of southern Italy. 

Under these circumstances, it is natural that Etruscan 
sculpture follows, for the most part, Greek models and 
precedents. The earliest Etruscan statues present the types 
of early Greek statues, though often with Etruscan modifi- 
cations, as when a goddess wears the twisted necklace 
(torques) adopted from the Gauls, or an Apollo wears a neck- 
lace, an armlet, and boots. A few types are purely Etruscan, 


among them that of Charun, the hideous demon of death. 
The chief centres of plastic art were Cortona, Arretium, and 
Perusia for bronze statues, Clusium for stone, Volaterrae for 
alabaster, and Tarquinii and Caere for terra-cotta figures. 
There seems to have been little intercourse between the 
artists of these centres, but the art of each place carried on 
an isolated existence. 

Terra-cotta Statues. — The making of monumental terra- 
cotta statues was practised in early times by the Greeks, 
and was continued by the Etruscans after the Greeks them- 
selves had given it up. The pediments and roofs of temples 
were adorned with terra-cotta figures in high relief and in 
the round. Such were the decorations of the early temple 
of Capitoline Jupiter at Rome. Comparatively few large 
terra-cottas are now preserved, and of these many are frag- 
mentary, but they suffice to show that the progress of art 
was determined rather by the progress of Greek sculpture 
than by any internal or native growth. 

Cinerary Statues, etc. — By far the most numerous works 
of Etruscan sculpture are those connected with the cult 
of the dead, chiefly sarcophagi and cistae, or ash-urns, in 
the form of small sarcophagi: At Chiusi (Clusium), in 
the sixth and fifth centuries, the form of a human head was 
given to the covers of the urns in which the ashes of the dead 
were deposited (Canopic vases). The appearance of these 
heads is not Hellenic; they seem to be portraits of the de- 
ceased, rude at first, but soon becoming vigorous and realis- 
tic. After a time arms were added to the vases, and thus the 
likeness to a human figure was increased. The next step was 
naturally to give the urn the form of the human body, to 
create, that is to say, the "cinerary statue," a hollow figure 
with a movable head. The ashes were deposited within 
the body and the head set back again in its place. But when 
this step was taken, the artists succumbed to Greek influence 
and adopted the types of archaic Greek seated statues. A 
further development of the " cinerary statue " is the " cinerary 
group" ; the deceased is represented lying on a couch, with 
his wife seated at his feet. A still further development adds 


some standing slaves to the group of husband and wife. 
Such "cinerary groups" are developed from the Canopic 
vases by natural evolution ; they are confined to the school 
of Chiusi. The reclining figure on the couch is not, however, 
an inevitable development from the Canopic vase, but has 
another origin. The religious or ceremonial banquet, whether 
in connection with the dead or not, is a familiar type in Greek 
relief sculpture, and in this the chief figure is the man reclin- 
ing on the couch at the table. Other monuments from Chiusi 
are small pedestals, or cippi, and sarcophagi. The sides of 
these are adorned with reliefs which represent, for the most 
part, scenes connected with the funeral, mourning at the 
bier, the procession, the funeral games, and the like. The 
relief is low and not well modelled, the human forms usually, 
though not always, heavy and clumsy ; in general, the reliefs 
appear to be imitations of archaic Greek work, quite without 
the vigor and naturalism of the Canopic vases. 

Sarcophagi mid Ash Chests. — The Canopic vase and the 
cinerary statue naturally came into being where the dead 
were burned. Where burial was in vogue the sarcophagus, 
or stone coffin, was the natural receptacle. The deceased 
was laid in the coffin as on a bed, and it was not unnatural 
that, when the portrait of the deceased was desired, it took 
the form of a reclining figure on the lid of the sarcophagus. 
Sometimes it seems that the bed is in the mind of the sculp- 
tor, at other times the banquet scene is evidently represented. 
Most frequently one person only reclines upon the sarcopha- 
gus, but groups consisting of a man and his wife are not un- 
common. About the third century B.C., in places where the 
custom of burning the dead prevailed, the cinerary urns took 
the form of diminutive sarcophagi, and these were decorated 
in the same way as real sarcophagi, the only difference being 
in dimensions. Some of the statues on sarcophagi an ^ 
cistae are really excellent, whereas others are of no artistic 
value whatever. Among the first are the man and woman 
on a sarcophagus from Cervetri, now in the Louvre. 
Here the forms and attitudes have the stiffness of archaic 
art, but the work is careful and the effect, which was once 



heightened by color, dignified and impressive. The strong 
influence of Greek art is seen in the figures themselves and 
also in the decoration of the couch. A later work, but no 
less admirable, is the sarcophagus of Seianti Thanunia, in 
the British Museum (Fig. 84). Other sarcophagus statues 
reproduce the features of the deceased with the greatest 
apparent realism, equalling in this respect the Greek por- 
traits of the third century and later. By the second century 

Figure 84. — Sarcophagus of Seianti Thanunia. British Museum. 
(Antike Denkmaler, I, pi. 20.) 

B.C. the use of cinerary urns in the form of small sarcophagi 
has become so frequent and their production is so mechanical 
that most of them are quite without artistic value. The 
^cumbent figures on the lids are neither portraits nor ideal 
figures, but merely rude approximations to the human 
form, and the figures in relief which cover the sides are no 
better in design or execution. These reliefs now represent, 
for the most part, the more tragic or bloody stories of Greek 
mythology. Nearly every museum of antiquities in Europe 


has more than enough of these unattractive objects, which 
exhibit the natural faults of the industrial art of a people 
without inherent artistic taste. 

Not all the reliefs on sarcophagi are devoid of real merit. 
The best among them represent scenes connected with the 
funeral or with the previous life of the deceased, in which the 
influence of Greek examples is clearly visible, though the 
winged demons which the Etruscans associated with death 
are occasionally introduced, and Etruscan clothing, utensils, 
and the like are accurately represented. Some of the Greek 
mythological scenes on sarcophagi are well designed (with- 
out doubt in imitation of Greek originals) and executed with 
comprehension, or, at least, with no evident misunderstand- 
ing of their meaning. In other instances Etruscan demons 
are inserted among Greek deities or heroes in such a way as 
to indicate that the designer had only a vague notion of the 
meaning of his work. 

Stelae. — A few stelae, or upright gravestones, from Tus- 
cany exhibit a hea^'y, primitive style, somewhat similar to 
that of certain archaic reliefs from the Peloponnese, but 
with no very clear indication of foreign influence. North 
of the Apennines, however, in the neighborhood of Bologna, 
stelae are numerous. These belong, apparently, to the 
fourth century B.C., or about that time, and the designs, in 
flat relief, show merely that Greek originals, probably paint- 
ings or drawings, were imitated by artisans who knew little 
of the human form or of the technique of sculpture in stone. 

Bronzes. — By far the most numerous monuments of 
Etruscan sculpture are the sarcophagi and urns of terra- 
cotta and stone — for the pressed reliefs on the black Etruscan 
pottery (bucchero nero) and the designs on jewellery cannot 
properly be called sculpture — but some of the finest work of 
Etruscan artists was done in bronze. A consistent history, 
showing the progress of the art of the bronze worker, would 
be difficult, if not impossible, nor is it necessary for our 
purpose. Small and rude figures of bronze form parts of 
various utensils at an early date, and important works, such 
as the bronze chariot in the Metropolitan Museum in New 


York, were made as early as the sixth century B.C. Some 
fine bronze statuettes also belong to the same time. These 
works exhibit the qualities of contemporary Ionic Greek art, 
and indeed many of the archaic bronzes found in Etruria 
may be imported Greek work. In the seventh and sixth 
centuries the Carthaginian and Phoenician influence was 
strong in Etruria, and this shows itself in the jewellery and 
furnishings found in tombs; but such oriental influence 
gave way before the end of the sixth century, and it was at 
no time a positive controlling force in sculpture, partly, 
no doubt, because sculpture played a less important part 
among Phoenicians than among Greeks. The reliefs on the 
large bronze pails at Bologna make at first sight a some- 
what oriental impression, but examination shows that they 
are attempts on the part of native workmen to imitate the 
general style of Greek vase paintings of the end of the sixth 
or beginning of the fifth century, and to combine with that 
imitation a realistic presentation of native costumes, habits, 
and ceremonies. The most numerous Etruscan bronzes 
date from the fourth century and later. These are similar 
in style to the Greek bronzes of the same time, and they are 
often well executed. Many statuettes served as handles 
or ornaments of bronze cistae or other vessels and utensils, 
and the surfaces of the cistae, of mirror cases, and of other 
bronze objects were adorned with reliefs and incised drawings. 
The Etruscan bronze workers were so skilful that their work 
was exported even to Greece itself. Nevertheless, Etruscan 
bronzes exhibit a lack of that original study of nature which 
is evident in contemporary Greek work, and they show also 
less care in detail, less real intelligence on the part of the 

Bronze Statues. — Few Etruscan bronze statues are pre- 
served, though many existed in ancient times, for the Romans 
included thousands of them among the booty they gained in 
their conquests over the Etruscans. The Wolf of the Capitol, 
the Minerva and the Chimaera from Arezzo are now re- 
garded as Greek works. The Mars of Todi and the Orator 
{Arringatore) in Florence (Fig. 85) are without doubt Etrus- 



can. The Mars, with all its realism in costume and expres- 
sion, is somewhat stiff in attitude, but the Orator is a master- 
piece. Aules Metelis, for his name is given in an inscription 
stands with raised right hand, his head very slightly throwr 

back, and gazes calmlj 
and a trifle haughtilj 
upon his audience. He 
is evidently one whc 
feels that he speaks 
with authority. It may 
be that the folds of the 
drapery are a little stiff, 
but that does not affect 
the splendid quality of 
the portrait. 

Qualities of Etruscan 
Sculpture. — Yet how 
much is there in 
Etruscan sculpture that 
is really native? The 
first impulses toward 
plastic art came from 
Asia and Greece, and 
presently the Greek in- 
fluence became predom- 
inant. In the sixth 
century, Etruscan sculp- 
tors were original only 
in so far as they added 
to the Greek types they 
adopted some details of 
Etruscan costume or per- 
sonal adornment. If 
their work differs in other respects from Greek work, it is 
only by reason of its inferior workmanship. Much the same 
may be said of the later Etruscan sculpture. Motives are 
almost exclusively Greek, as are also technical methods. 
Etruscan sculpture throughout is a provincial development 

% j 














^■Timi " .- -S- 1 

Figure 85. — The " Arringatore. " Flor- 
ence. (Brunn-Bruckmann, 320.) 


of Greek sculpture. It exhibits, however, in some examples 
a truth of portraiture and a sort of rugged realism which 
give it an interest of its own. Moreover, Etruscan influence 
was for many years predominant at Rome, and the Romans 
seem to have acquired their first notions of art from the Etrus- 
cans. It may well be, therefore, that the art of Etruria, less 
refined and less perfect than that of Greece, was a factor of 
some importance in the formation of the art of imperial Rome, 
in which it was finally merged. 


Roman Art before the Empire. — In the early daj's of Rome 
the influence of the Etruscans was predominant, and there 
is every reason to suppose that any Roman sculpture which 
may have existed was in no way to be distinguished from 
Etruscan work. There are, howe^'er, no extant monuments 
of sculpture which can be confidently claimed as Roman 
work of the time of the kings, or even of the early years of 
the republic. Etruscan art was, as we have seen, strongly 
influenced by Greek art, and Rome came into direct contact 
with Hellenic ci\'iIization at a very early date. According 
to Pliny {Nat. Hist.,xxxv, 154), two Greek artists, Damophilus 
and Gorgasus, painted in 496 B.C. the reliefs which adorned 
the temple of Ceres, Liber, and Libera ; and if Greek painters 
worked at Rome at such an early date, we can hardly doubt 
that works of Greek art were imported still earlier. As 
time went on the Romans became more and more familiar 
with Greek art, and before the end of the third century B.C. 
Greek statues and Greek sculptors were numerous at Rome. 
Indeed, Rome was, as early as the second century B.C., an 
important centre of Hellenic culture. Naturally therefore 
Roman sculpture would be strongly influenced by Greek 
sculpture, whatever racial or national differences might 
exist between Greeks and Romans. 

Greek and Roman Art. — It has been generally accepted as 
a fact that the Romans were a more strictly practical people 
than the Greeks and that in matters of art the Romans were 
realists and the Greeks idealists. But we have seen that late 
Greek (Hellenistic) art had many traits of realism ; in fact, 
Hellenistic sculptors often reproduced individual peculiari- 



ties with ruthless fidelity, even when they were far from 
beautiful. The brother of Lysippus is said to have made 
casts directly from his human models. Mere realism is, / 
then, no proof that a work is Roman, rather than Greek, and, ^ 
in the present state of our knowledge, it is impossible to 
distinguish between Hellenistic sculpture and Roman sculp- 
ture of the time of the republic.^ The sculptors who worked 
at Rome seem as a rule to have been Greeks, so far as their 
names indicate their nationality ; but it is possible that 
among those whose names are not recorded the proportion of 
Greeks may have been less. But whatever the race of the 
sculptors, the fact remains that sculpture, as practised at 
Rome and for Romans under the republic, was Hellenistic i 
sculpture little, if at all, modified by Roman taste. ' 

Roman Art Hellenistic. — In the last years of the re- 
public and until after the foundation of Constantinople 
Rome was the centre of civilization. But civilization was 
Greek in most respects, especially with regard to art. Wher- 
ever the Roman legions pitched their camps, they established 
outposts of Hellenic culture as it existed in their times. 
The rise of the Pergamene kingdom had offered the Greek 
sculptors of the third and second centuries B.C. new oppor- 
tunities, and thereby undoubtedly affected the progress of 
Greek sculpture at that time. So, but in far greater meas- 
ure, the rise of the great Roman power, and above all the 
establishment of the empire by Augustus, offered to archi- 
tects, painters, and sculptors — for the most part Greeks, 
and all educated in Greek traditions — new opportunities 
and new problems. The art of Rome is Hellenistic art, but/ 
it is Hellenistic art under new conditions which lead to new\ 
development, not merely to decadence. We are therefore 
justified in calling it Roman art. In the eastern parts of the 
empire, especially in Asia, interest in the representation of 

' Altmann, Die romischen Grabaltare, pp. 196 ff. (cf. Mrs. Strong, Roman 
Sculpture, p. 350), observes that certain rather crude portraits on grave 
monuments show the influence of the wax imagines which the Romans ex- 
hibited at funerals and are strictly Roman. Even if this view be correct, 
it hardly affects the general statement above ; moreover, portraits of the 
class mentioned soon went out of fashion. 


the human form grew less as time went on, and sculpture 
developed (or degenerated) into mere ornament in relief, so 
executed that the lights and shadows produce almost the 
effect of a pattern in black and white, but at Rome and in the 
western regions the human form continued to be the centre 

/ of the sculptors' interest, though ornament was also devel- 

( oped in a remarkable degree. 

Many of the statues made at Rome or for Romans were 
copies of famous Greek works, or were imitations of the style 
of Greek masters of earlier times. Several such works have 
been mentioned in the chapters on Greek sculpture, and it is 
not necessary to discuss them at length . They possess great 
interest, because they throw light upon the history of Greek 
sculpture, inasmuch as many works of famous artists are 
preserved only in Roman copies ; but they do not exhibit 
the progress of art under the Roman empire. They show 
that Roman patrons of art in the last years of the republic, 
under Augustus, under Hadrian, and to a greater or less 
extent for some centuries, liked to possess copies of famous 
Greek statues, and that imitations of the archaic Greek style 
were much appreciated in the days of Pasiteles and his school ; 
but they do not illustrate the real life of sculpture under the 
Romans. That life is exhibited chiefly in the official or his- 
torical reliefs and in portraits. 

Reliefs from the miliar of Neptune. — Perhaps the earliest 
important work of Roman sculpture is the series of reliefs 
which once decorated the altar in front of the temple of 
Neptune erected about 35-32 B.C. by Domitius Ahenobarbus.^ 
On three sides the reliefs represent the marriage of Poseidon 
and Amphitrite,^ on the fourth a Roman sacrifice. The 
relief is well modelled, and in general the execution is good, 
though not remarkably fine. The combination of mytho- 
logical or allegorical scenes with scenes of real life is not new, 

1 Furtwangler, Intermezzi, pp. 35 ff. ; Mrs. Strong, Roman Sculpture, 
pp. 33 ff. The scene of sacrifice is in the Louvre, the rest in Munich. 

2 Pliny, Nat. Hist., xxxv, 26, says Domitius dedicated in this temple a 
group of Tritons and Nereids by Scopas. Partly for this reason these reliefs 
were formerly attributed to Scopas, with whose work they can have at most 
only a very distant connection. See page 111. 


to be sure, but it is nevertheless characteristic of Roman 
art. As time went on, the mythological element became 
less and less important. Here the mythological figures are 
lifelike and graceful, and the composition is skilful and 
pleasing, leading the eye through the well-conceived lesser 
groups to the singularly attractive group of Poseidon and 
Amphitrite in the centre. Composition with reference to a 
strongly marked centre was by no means unknown to the 
Greeks of earlier times, but it becomes a marked feature of 
Roman art, from which it passed to the art of later centuries. 
In the mythological part of these reliefs there is, however, 
nothing distinctively Roman. The scene of sacrifice, on 
the other hand, while its execution shows that the artist 
was trained in Greek methods, is Roman in subject and is 
conceived in a spirit which is hardly to be found before the 
time of Roman greatness. Domitius, in warlike costume 
and statuesque pose, stands beside the altar. Behind him 
are his troops, some of them already in the garb of peace 
after their campaign. At the extreme left sits a writer, 
probably preparing the military diplomas. At the right of 
the altar, balancing Domitius, is the imposing figure of the 
priest who awaits the sacrifice (the suovetaurilia — swine, 
ram, and bull, here in reverse order), behind which are again 
men of the army, among them a cavalryman with his horse. 
The composition is varied, but not too animated. The bull 
is absurdly large, as if the artist wished by sheer bulk to atone 
for the fact that the altar, the centre of the action, is not in 
the centre of the composition. But the accuracy with which 
the costumes and official actions are represented is remark- 
able. Evidently the artist was interested in bringing vividly 
before the eyes of the spectator a significant episode in the 
career of his patron. 

The Ara Pads. — A similar spirit is felt in the far more 
interesting reliefs from the wall which enclosed the Ara 
Pads, the altar of Peace, erected by Augustus.^ The wall 

1 The fragments of these reliefs are now scattered — in Rome, Florence, 
Paris, and Vienna. See Mrs. Strong, Roman Sculpture, pp. 39 ff., for a 
description and discussion of the whole composition and references to previous 



was, with its base, about 6 m. (roughly 20 feet) high, about 
11.50 m. (roughly 38 feet) long on the entrance (east and 
west) sides, and 10.50 m. (roughly 35 feet) on the other sides. 
It was adorned inside and out with carvings. On the inside 
was an upper frieze of garlands suspended from bucrania 
(ox-heads), below which was a rich meander pattern, and be- 
low that a band of fluted marble. Pilasters stood at each 
side of the entrances and at the corners of the enclosure. 
On the outside was a series of great reliefs, partly allegorical, 

fiGUEE 86. — Relief from the Altar of Peace. UfEzi Gallery, Florence. 

partly historical and iconographic, representing the pro- 
cession in honor of the goddess Peace, and below this a 
frieze of conventional floral scrolls. 

The group representing Earth {Terra or Tellus) with Air 
and Water beside her contains many reminiscences of earlier 
Greek works, but the figure of Earth herself, affectionately 
holding two small children, sj^mbolizes in a new and attrac- 
tive manner the great mother of us all. The part of the frieze 
(south side) which represents the emperor, his family, and 
his attendants is especially interesting, as it contains many 



portraits, most of which are, however, not yet satisfactorily 
identified (Fig. 86). The grouping is here ingenious and 
excellent. The least interesting portion is the official pro- 
cession (north side), for here the figures are crowded and the 
effect monotonous. The faces are evidently in great part, 
at any rate, portrai t though few of them are identified. 

A peculiarly interest- 
ing feature of this frieze 
is the effect of space and 
perspective attained by 
\ the varying projection of 
the figures — especially 
the heads — from the 
background, which is it- 
self not all in one plane. 
Such an effect of extent 
in three dimensions is 
hardly to be found in 
earlier relief sculpture. 
Another innovation is in 
the representation of the 
\,eyes, which are not al- 
ways turned in the same 
direction as the face. 
This makes the expres- 
sion much more lifelike, 
especially where two or 
' more persons are sup- 
posed to be engaged in 

The composition is excellent in detail, but less good when 
considered as a whole. The two processions do not properly 
balance each other, and both turn their backs upon the 
scenes of religious observance. The group of Earth and her 
companions is insufficiently balanced by the sacrifice of a pig 
at the other side of the entrance ; and in general there seems 
to be little real unity in the composition. This serious defect 
was overcome in later official Roman reliefs. 

FiGUBE 87. — Decorative Scrollwork 
from the Altar of Peace. UfBzi Gallery, 


The purely decorative friezes — the bucrania, the garlands, 
and the floral scrolls — are of surpassing excellence. In 
general design there is the utmost grace and symmetry, and 
the details are elaborated with the greatest care and skill. 
The naturalism of the fruits, Leaves, and flowers is remark- 
able. A new and admirable development of decorative sculp- 
ture is here evident (Fig. 87). Decorative sculpture of 
the same kind — exhibiting, that is to say, the same quali- 
ties, is found on other monuments of the Augustan period, 
among which are to be reckoned some, at least, of the silver 
cups and other vessels from Bosco Reale. 

Pictorial and Neo-Attic Reliefs. — Two other diS'erent 
kinds of reliefs are to be ascribed to this period : the " pic- 
torial reliefs" and the "Xeo- Attic reliefs." The former 
are panels which seem to have been used for the decoration 
of walls, with little or no regard for their architectural 
setting, somewhat as we use pictures to-day. The action 
represented is often, even usually, of no great significance — 
a peasant driving a cow, or something of the sort — and the 
landscape background is elaborated with great variety of 
detail. Such pictorial backgrounds are already seen in the 
smaller frieze of the great altar at Pergamon (see page 133), 
but they are further developed in the Augustan age. In the 
"Xeo-Attic" reliefs the figures of deities. Victories, and 
human beings are carved in imitation of archaic Greek work. 
The drapery falls in regular, sharply divided folds, the 
attitudes are somewhat stiff, and the hair is arranged in 
artificial locks. The background often contains buildings 
which scholars have tried to identify with Roman edifices. 
These archaistic reliefs possess a certain charm, like that 
of the paintings of the pre-Raphaelite school, with which 
they have often been compared. The same tendency to 
revert to an earlier style is seen in the statues of the school 
of Pasiteles (see page 136), which belong to the same period. 

Bust^ and Statues of the Augustan Period. — In the reliefs 
of the Ara Pads the portraits have all the individualism 
and realism seen in the busts and statues of the last years 
of the republic, but the busts and statues of the Augustan 



period are likely to be more generalized and academic. This / 
is undoubtedly due to the taste of Augustus and his circle, 
which led to the imitation or adaptation of the earlier Greek 
style. A famous example is the statue of Augustus from 
Prima Porta (Fig. 88), in which the influence of the earlier 
style, though sufficiently pronounced, is not so strong as 
to produce an effect of 
academic coldness. The 
cuirass, with its Roman 
legends appearing as if 
wrought in metal, is 
universally admired. A 
few admirable busts of 
children, in which there 
is much life and indi- 
viduality, belong to this 

Other monuments of 
the time of Augustus 
and his immediate suc- 
cessors exhibit in vary- 
ing degree the charac- 
teristics mentioned in 
connection with the 
sculptures of the Ara 
Pads, most important 
of which are careful 
study of nature, new 
effects of light and 
shade, an advance tow- 
ard the treatment of three dimensions, especially in relief 
works, and the development of an almost official art by which 
great persons and events were celebrated. Such monuments 
are not confined to Rome and its immediate neighborhood, but 
are found in distant provinces as well. In spite of the fact 
that most of the works of Augustan art have disappeared, 
the extant remains suffice to give a clear, if not exhaustive, 
knowledge of its qualities. Some works, especially in the 

FiGTjKE 88. — Augustus, from Prima 
Porta. The Vatican. 


provinces, are still conceived in the Hellenistic style of the 
first and second centuries B.C./ and others are rudely or 
carelessly designed and executed, but it is not in such works 
that the real qualities of the art of the period are to be sought.^ 

Flavian Sculpture. — There are relatively few remains of 
sculpture dating from the time between the death of Augus- 
tus and the principate of Domitian. Apparently there was 
no marked progress or change under the Julian emperors,, 
and the new influences which made themselves felt under 
the Fla'S'ian dynasty (69-96 a.d.) are best studied in works 
which were finished under Doinitian (81-96 a.d.). Of these 
the most important are the reliefs of the Arch of Titus. 
The panels under the vault of the archway represent the 
triumphal procession — on one side the emperor in his chariot, 
with Victory by his side, and an escort which includes alle- 
gorical figures of Rome and the Roman people (Fig. 89), 
and on the other the Roman soldiers bearing the sacred 
utensils from the temple at Jerusalem. In both panels the 
impression of motion is admirably conveyed, and in both the 
figures are carved at different depths, so that light and air 
pass between and about them and help to produce an effect 
of space and reality. The chief defect of these panels is 
seen in the arrangement of the horses in one and the arch 
in the other. The horses appear to be advancing at right 
angles to the chariot, and the soldiers seem to be marching 
against the side of the arch. Evidently the science of per- 
spective was unknown to the brilliant artist of these reliefs. 
The remaining sculptures of this arch are interesting, but 
are neither so well preserved nor so important as these two 

Other works of this period — chiefly reliefs on altars and 
panels from various monuments — exhibit in varying degree 

_' The admirable bronze statue in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, 
evidently a portrait of a youthful member of the family of Augustus, might, 
so far as style and technique are concerned, be a Greek work of the fourth, 
century B.C. See G. M. A. Richter, American Journal of Archaeology, XIX, 
1915, pp. 121-12S. 

^ The qualities of Augustan art are seen in many small works, notably in 
such cameos as the "Grande Camee" in the Bibliothfeque Nationale in 
Paris and the "Gemma Augusta" in Vienna. The silver vases of Bosco 
Reale have already been mentioned. 



the qualities of Flavian sculpture. Evidently the coming 
of the Flavian dynasty brought — apparently from Graeco- 
Syrian sources — a new spirit into Roman art. Purely, 
decorative work is at once realistic, delicate, and fanciful,! 
and historical relief is vigorous and skilfully wrought, the! 
varying depth of the carving and the arrangement of the 
figures being so managed as to produce an^ illusion of reality <:;;^ 
of depth, and of distance, and at the same time a pleasing 
variety of light and shade. The Flavian portrait busts in-^ 

Figure 89. — Panel of the Arch of Titus, Rome. 

elude the shoulders and the breast line, whereas those of the\ . 
Augustan time include little more than the head and neck.l l\\\w 
The faces are expressive, and the work usually careful. In 
general, the modelling in portraits, as in reliefs, is some-^ 
what rounder than before. 

Sculpture of Trainn's Time — The chief extant sculptures 
of the time of ' Trajan ("98-117 a.d.) are the reliefs of the 
Column of Trajan ana the Arch at Beneventum. Other ^^ 
important works are the reliefs on two balustrades in the 
Roman forum, numerous portraits, several statues, and 
some purely decorative carvings. 


The reliefs of Traj a ji's column occupy a band about a 
metre in height and more than 200 metres long, which winds 
in a spiral curve about the lofty shaft. They represent in 
"V great detail the two wars against the Dacians. The army 
^ is seen moving stores, marching, encamping, fighting; the 
emperor is everywhere the central figure, whether the scene 
is one of religious observance, of fierce combat, or of Dacian 
surrender to the Roman victors. The scenes are not divided 


Figure 90. — Relief on the Column of Trajan. (Brunn-Bruckmann, 400 ; 

from casts.) 

i|by visible barriers, but the composition is continuous. The 
[ chief indication of a new scene is often the repetition of the 
figure of the emper-or, though the actual scenery is repre- 
sented with great care, and thus the change of setting in- 
dicates also a change of action. The relief varies in depth, 

\. but the figures are nowhere carved in really high relief, and 
there is no attempt to produce the illusion of space and 
depth by allowing air and light to pass between the figures. 

j In fact, the figures are here placed side by side or one above 
another, not, as in the reliefs of the Ara Pads, in different 


vertical planes so that one is really farther than another' 
from the extreme outer surface. The human beings and 
their action form the theme of the whole, but the action 
would not be clear without indication of its local surround- 
ings. Accordingly the topography — hills, trees, city walls, 
bridges, etc. — is represented in great detail and with sur- 
prising accuracy. But if the true proportions were pre- 
served, the figures of the men would be so small that their 
action could not be seen. The artist has therefore reduced / 
the size of almost everything else. This results in perfect ^ 
clearness, though the diminutive buildings, trees, and other J 
featm-es of the landscape impress one at first sight as absurd. 
Details of costume, armor, and facial expression are rendered/' 
with painstaking accuracy. As a whole, this relief exhibits ■ 
wonderful resourcefulness, for in spite of its vast length there 
is no monotony or exact repetition. In execution there may 
be some lack of delicacy, but there is no lack of vigor or truth. 
The continuous style employed here is peculiarly appropriate 
for narrative, and has remained in use (sometimes in combi- 
nation with other methods) even to the present time. 

The column of Trajan commemorates the emperor's . 
victories over the Dacians. The arch at Beneventum, erected ^' 
in 113-114 A.D., commemorates his successful policy and 
the benefits of his rule. On both fronts and in the passage- 
way the arch is richly adorned with reliefs — those on the 
front towards Rome celebrating Trajan's home policy, those 
toward the country his provincial policy, and those in the 
archway his bounty to the town of Beneventum. The scenes 
represented in the reliefs are connected in significance, but 
they are distributed in separate panels and their style re- 
sembles that of the panels of the,arrh n L Titus, rather than 
that of the relief^oHh£johipaiLQi3£a|an. In execution they 
are excellent, and~the clearness withwhich their meaning is 
expressed equals that seen in the reliefs of the column. Other 
works — lesser reliefs, statues, busts, and remains of larger 
compositions — show that the time of Trajan was a period of 
activity among sculptors, who produced excellent examples 
of figure composition and also of purely decorative reliefs. 


Sculpture under JIadrian . Sarcophagi. — Under Hadrian 
(117;438 A.D.) sculpture made little real progress. The 
methods^f the previous years were successfully employed 
to produce dignified and effective works, and there was also 
a marked revixal of the earlier custom of imitating and 
adapting the Greek style of the fifth and fourth centuries 
B.C. Excellent examples of Hadrianic reliefs are the two 
panels from an arch (now in the Museo dei Conservatori), 
one of which represents the apotheosis of an empress, the 
other an emperor (Hadrian, but the head is wrongly restored) 
making a proclamation. Here the style is the same as that 
seen in the arch at Beneventum, with only slight modifications. 
The "continuous style" seen in the relief of the column 
of Trajan appears imder Hadrian chiefly on sarcophagi, 
which were at this time and for some centuries after popular 
at Rome and elsewhere. Roman sarcophagi of this period 
are decorated with reliefs which represent for the most part 
scenes from Greek mythology. The individual figures are 
frequently obvious imitations or adaptations of classic Greek 
types, but the composition belongs to the time of Hadrian. 
The rgliefs of the column of Trajan are low, whereas those 
of the sarcophagi are so high as to be often almost freed from 
the background. This does not, however, seem to be done 
for the purpose of creating an illusion of depth, space, and 
distance, but rather to produce strong effects of light and 
j shade by making the figures stand out from the deep shadows 
! behind them. The result is not always happy, but we must 
remember that those who designed and carved the sarcophagi 
were probably not often the distinguished artists of the 
period, but, for the most part, mere artisans. On some 
sarcophagi of this time garlands and similar decorations are 
admirably done, and Erotes or Cupids appear which rival, 
or even excel, those of the Italian renaissance.^ 

' Roman sarcophagi offer an interesting field for study in themselves. 
A vast mass of material is rollected in a great publication of the Imperial 
German Archaeological Institute, Die antiken Sarkophagreliefs, by Carl 
Robert ; a survey of the field, with special reference to Christian sarcophagi, 
is given by Ludwig von Sybel, Christliche Antike, Vol. II, pp. 165-225; 
Mrs. Strong, Roman Sculpture, pp. 254-267, discusses Hadrianic sarcophagi 
with enthusiastic appreciation. 



Portraits. Antinous. — Numerous portraits of this time 
differ from those of the preceding years chiefly in the cos- 
tume or coiffure represented and in the plastic representation 
of the pupil of the eye. This last is seen in some of the re- 
liefs of the Ara Pads, but hardly appears in sculpture in the 
round before the time of Hadrian. Of all portraits of this 
period those of Hadrian's favorite, the beautiful Bithynian 
youth Antinous, are the most striking and interesting (Fig. 
91). The beauty of the regular features is extraordinary. 
They seem to be modelled from a jjreek statue of the fifth 
or the fourth century B.C., and probably 
such statues did exert some influence in 
the formation of the type of Antinous. 
The expression of the face is not quite 
the same in the numerous portraits, but 
varies from one of melancholy brooding 

f^f, to one of voluptuousdreaming. Some- 

\Vl thing oriental and sensuous~is^ added to 
I'the Greek purity and delicacy of feature. 
The Antonine Period. — In the Anto- 
nine period (138-193 a.d.) the general 
tendencies were touch the same as in 
the time of Hadrian. Detached scenes 
are perhaps somewhat more conven- 
tional, and Greek influence, the use of 
earlier types and methods of composi- 
tion, is evident on the front of the base 
of the column of Antoninus Pius. The reliefs on the sides 
of the same base, which represent horsemen riding in a circle 
round a group of foot-soldiers, show an almost ludicrous 
inability to cope with the problems of perspective, though in 
other respects they are well designed and executed (Fig. 92) . 
The reliefs of the column of Marcus Aurelius are obviously ^ 
composed in imitation of those of Trajan's column, but 
the groups of figures are more compressed, the lights and 
shadows are more pronounced, and the sequence of the scenes 
less strictly historical. A greater interest in the moods ' 
and emotions of the actors may also be observed. 

Figure 91. — Bust 
of Antinous. The 
Louvre, Paris. 




This was a period of many monuments, not only at Rome, 
but also in other parts of the empire. In the eyes of por- 
traits and other works in the round the iris, as well as the 
pupil, is carved. ItjsjiQticeable also that the hair is deeply 
undercut, a method whjch produces strong contrasts of 
light and shade, such as has already been noticed on sarcoph- 
agi. The use of the drill to supplement and even, in ameas- 

FlGURE 92. 

- Relief from the Base of the Column of Antoninus Pius. The 
Vatican. (Brunn-Bruckmann, 210.) 

ure, to supplant the chisel increases the depth of the shadow, 
sometimes in an undesirable manner. The bronze equestrian 
statue of Marcus Aurelius, which stands on the Capitoline 

'hill in Rome, is impressive, in spite of the stiff attitude of 
the emperor and the somewhat clumsy form of the horse. 
It is the only large equestrian bronze statue that has come 

' down to us from antiquity. 

The TMxd—Q^aitm)^ — During the reign of Septimius 
Severus (193-211 a.d.) and for the most part throughout 


the third century the continuous style and the strong effects 
of light and shade already observed are employed side by 
side^aSdrtnTcombination. The arch of Severus in the Roman 
forum (203 a.d.) is covered with reliefs divided into panels, 
but composed in the continuous style. They differ from 
the reliefs of, for instance, the column of Trajan in exhib- 
iting stronger effects of light and shade and in the closer 
composition of the groups. Similar qualities are seen in 
other official reliefs (all fragmentary) of this period. 

Sarcophagi. — The sarcophagi of this period are very 
numerous and include many of great interest. The com- 

FiGDKE 93. — Achilles and Penthesilea ; Roman Sarcophagus. The Vatican. 

position is often overcrowded, producing a confused effect] j 
but the reliefs show some originality and real skill in execu-ll 
tion (Fig. 93). Among the sarcophagi are some which are 
decorated, not with continuous reliefs covering the entire 
side, but with a succession of niches or of columns and 
arches, a single figure or, at most, a group of two figures 
standing in each niche or under each arch. The carved 
decoration of the arches, as well as certain other features of 
this style, seems to be derived from the East. Even in the 
third century some of the sarcophagi are obviously Chris- 
tian, but the early Christian sculptors followed the methods 
of their pagan contemporaries, even when scenes from the 


Bible were to be represented. Some figures, for instance 
the Good Shepherd, are adopted bodily from pagan art, 
and others are clearly influenced by pagan types. The 
distinctively Christian types are developed from those em- 
ployed in the early Christian paintings of the catacombs. 

Purely decorative sculpture continued to be practised 
with success. The gate of the argentarii, or money changers, 
is an excellent example of work of this kind. Some of the 
reliefs representing the god Mithra slaying a bull, most of 
which have been found in the northern and western parts of 
the empire, are really fine works of art, inspired by classical 
Greek models, though many of them are somewhat rudely 

Portraits. — The portraits of this period are for the most 
part busts or half statues reaching to the waist, and they 
are composed, at least after the early part of the century, 
with little regard for variety. The face is set looking straight 
forward, and the body is stiffly upright, as is the case in 
Egyptian and early Greek statues. The contour is hard and 
clear, hair and eyebrows are wrought with little detail, and 
the drapery is lifeless. The existing statues exhibit similar 
qualities. This does not mean that the works are without 
merit, for some of them are evidently characteristic por- 
traits, but it is clear that art is deteriorating. 

The Fourth Century. — In the fourth century Roman art 
is dying, at least in Italy and the West. The arch of Con- 
stantine has been regarded as the chief existing monument 
of this period, but it may be that the entire structure is of 
earlier date.' Much of its sculptural adornment is univer- 
sally attributed to earlier times. The reliefs which are by 
most critics regarded as Constantinian are so carved that 
the figures are all in one plane, although the persons are 
evidently supposed ton5e~at~drfferent distances from the 
\ spectator. Each figure is marked off, and, as it were, sur- 
rounded by deep shadow. The regular alternation of light 

' This view is advocated by A. L. Frothingham, American Journal of 
ArrhaeoloQi/. Vol. XVI, 1912, pp. 368-386; Vol. XVII, 1913, pp. 487-503; 
Vol. XIX, 1915, pp. 1-12 and 367-384. 


and dark produces an effect somewhat like that of painting 
in flat colors, which is evidently intentional. Even in the '^ 
decline of art the artists succeeded in producing the effect 
they desired. Portraits of this period are coarsely executed, ] 
and their pose is rigid, but the better examples possess a ' 
certain dignity. 

Christian sarcophagi are numerous in the fourth century, 
and among them are some which are interesting on account 
of their iconography, their selection of subjects, and 
their beauty. The artists were undoubtedly influenced 
by the art of Syria,- but so were the pagan artists of Rome. 
The Christian sarcophagi are certainly among the most 
important examples of Roman sculpture of this period. 
Some of those found in southern France closely resemble 
those found in Rome, but others seem to be more directly 
and more strongly influenced by Syrian art. 

The art which is called Roman is a development of Hel- 
lenistic art, but the Roman Empire offered new subjects, 
and in the treatment of those subjects new methods were / 
developed which were applied not only in official reliefs, \ 
but also in other works. In the third and fourth centuries 
the art of sculpture declined, even though it still continued 
to essay new methods in composition and in the treatment 
of space, light, and shade. In the fourthcentury Constan- 
tinople became the chief seat of the Empire, and from that 
time the art of Europe was almost exclusively Christian 
and was, even in the West, for the most part Byzantine or, 
at least, strongly influenced by Byzantine art. 



Oriental Influence upon Hellenistic Art in Asia. — After 
the conquests of Alexander the Great, in the fourth century 
before Christ, Greek civihzation, and with it Greek art, 
spread over Egypt and a large part of western Asia. As we 
have seen in the chapter on Roman sculpture, it was carried 
also to Italy and the West, where it developed under the 
Roman Empire, undergoing modifications as time went on, 
and finally falling into decay with the decay of the Roman 
Empire itself. As we have seen, the art of Italy, even before 
the days of the Roman Empire, was in great measure Greek ; 
in the western provinces there was virtually no art except 
that which was introduced by Greeks and Romans, and in 
Africa the Phoenician art which had existed in the days of 
Carthaginian greatness succumbed to Greek and Roman 
influence after the Roman conquest. In Egypt and Asia, 
however, Greek civilization came in contact with peoples 
which had for centuries possessed a civilization of their own. 
The Greeks who followed in the train of the INIacedonian 
conquests were far inferior in mmiber to the native popula- 
tion and settled almost exclusively in the cities. The coun- 
try was everywhere occupied by the former inhabitants, who 
had merely changed their rulers. As time went on, the 
tastes and traditions of the old inhabitants made themselves 
more and more felt, even in the cities, and exerted constantly 
increasing influence upon art. It is true that works of 
sculpture found in the coast cities, at Ephesus, for instance, 
which were carved in the days of Roman greatness exhibit 
much the same qualities seen in Avorks of the same date 
found in Italy ; but in Syria, the interior of Asia Minor, 



Mesopotamia, and Egypt, the native art makes itself felt as 
early, at least, as the second century after Christ. This 
native influence is especially strong in architecture, but 
extended also to the other arts and among them to sculpture. 

The great buildings of Greece (and in this the Greeks were 
followed by the Romans) were decorated with works of 
sculpture which were colored, to be sure, but which relied for 
their effects upon their sculptured forms rather than upon 
their value as colored patterns. The architectural decora- 
tion of Persian buildings, and of the buildings of western 
Asia in general, was sometimes carved, but consisted more 
frequently of colored tiles which were sometimes raised, but 
which depended for their effect chiefly upon their color value. 
Moreover, the chief interest of the Greek artists was always 
in the human form, whereas Asiatic taste preferred scrolls, 
beasts, and plant forms arranged in harmonious designs. As 
the result of Asiatic influence decorative sculpture in the 
eastern parts of the Roman Empire became less and less figure 
sculpture and tended to develop into scrollwork so carved 
that the projecting portions were flat and all in one plane, 
standing out as a light pattern against the dark background 
of shadow where the stone had been cut away. The effect 
is one of color rather than of sculpture. That similar coloris- 
tic effects were sought even in figure relief, we have seen in 
some of the later Roman works, which probably show the 
result of eastern influence. Statues continued to be made, 
and in them the old Greek traditions survived more than in 
decorative sculpture. The sarcophagus from Sidamara 
(Fig. 84, page 138), which dates from the third century after 
Christ, still shows in its graceful, well-designed statues the 
direct and powerful influence of the art of Praxiteles, while 
the carving of the capitals and the arches produces almost 
the effect of painting in black and white. 

Asiatic Influence in Constanti7iople. — When Constanti- 
nople was made the new capital of the Roman Empire, shortly 
after 325 a.d., the centre of power was moved nearer to the 
East, and eastern influence soon became far stronger in the 
new city than it had ever been in Rome. To be sure, many 


prominent Romans followed the court to the new capital, 
and the city was adorned with works of art brought from 
various places in Greece and elsewhere, so that the influence 
of the East upon art may well have seemed for a time to be 
little, if at all, greater than it had been in the Italian capital. 
But such a condition could not, and did not, last long. 
Probably the artistic influence which emanated from Rome 
had never greatly affected the East, and Constantinople could 
not at once become a centre of art, but at best a place where 
artists from different regions came and worked each in his 
own way, and therefore the probable result of the removal 
of the seat of government was at first to strengthen the artis- 
tic influence of such great cities as Antioch, where native art 
already flourished. Be this as it may, Constantinople soon 
became in a measure an oriental city, though it always re- 
tained much that was Roman and more that was Greek. 

After what has been said, it should be evident that sculp- 
ture could hardly be the most important branch of Byzantine 
art. In architecture the Byzantine builders created work- 
of remarkable dignity, stability, and beauty. These build- 
ings were adorned not only with decorative carvings and 
incrustation of colored marbles, but also with paintings and 
mosaics at once stately and brilliant, in which the history of 
the Christian church and the glory of the Christian faith 
were expressed with gorgeous and solemn magnificence. In 
the minor arts also — miniature painting, weaving, em- 
broidery, metal work, jewellery, enamel work, the carving of 
i\'ory and other materials in which the carving is on a small 
scale — the Byzantine artists and artisans excelled, and their 
work was exported far and wide. But whatever the im- 
portance of Byzantine art in general, Byzantine sculpture 
cannot claim a prominent position in the history of hiunan 

Periods of Byzantine A rt. The First Period. — The history 
of Byzantine art may be divided into four periods : I, from 
the foundation of Constantinople to the outbreak of the icono- 
clastic disturbances (3.30-726) ; II, the iconoclastic period 
(726-842) ; III, from the accession of Basil I to the sack of 



Constantinople by the Franks (867-1204) ; IV, from the 
restoration to the Turkish conquest (1261-1453). At the 
beginning of the first period the art of Constantinople must 
have been much the same as the art of Rome, though no 
doubt artists from various places in the East soon settled 
in the new capital, and their 
influence grew stronger as the 
old Roman traditions grew 
weaker. Statues of emperors 
and others continued to be 
made for some centuries cer- 
tainly, but they have all dis- 
appeared, with the exception 
of a colossal bronze figure (Fig. 
94) now at Barletta, in Italy, 
to which the name of Heraclius 
(emperor 610-642) was at- 
tached at least as early as 
1204, when it was brought by 
the Venetians from Constanti- 
nople. It is, however, now 
regarded as a work of the 
fourth century. At any rate, 
it is a sufficient proof that the 
loss of the great mass of monu- 
mental statues is hardly to be 
regretted. There are few ex- 
amples of monumental relief 
sculpture dating from this 
period ; only the reliefs of 
the pedestal of the obelisk 
erected by Theodosius in Con- 
stantinople, those of the monument of Porphyries the chariot 
racer, also at Constantinople, and those of the arch at 
Saloniki need be mentioned. These are all more like Roman 
work than the later products of Byzantine art. That many 
such monuments once existed is certain, but nearly all have 
vanished. At Ravenna, which was the seat of the Byzantine 

Figure 94. — Colossal Bronze 
Statue at Barletta. 


exarch or governor of Italy, sarcophagi serve to show the 
condition of sculpture. The earlier among them are deco- 
rated with figures, scenes from Bible story, sometimes well 
designed, but as time goes on the figures grow fewer and give 
place to mere symbols (Fig. 95) . The art of these sarcophagi 
is probablj' Syrian, rather than strictly Byzantine ; at any 
rate they exhibit the influence of Syrian art. 

The Doors of S. Sabina. Ivory Reliefs. — The reliefs of 
the doors of the church of S. Sabina, in Rome, representing 

FiGUBE 95. — Sarcophagus in Ravenna. 

scenes from the Old and New Testaments are eastern, perhaps 
Syrian, work of the fifth century. They are in all respects 
superior to the sarcophagi of the same period and show 
great ability in composition as well as technical skill. In 
ivory carvings the ancient elements of design and the ancient 
care in execution survive in some measure. Such carvings, 
chiefly in the form of diptichs, or tablet cases, had been 
common in Rome and continued in favor after Constantinople 
became the seat of empire. They were given away as birth- 



day gifts, or as congratulatory offerings to newly made con- 
suls, or on other appropriate occasions. Such diptichs were 
later used as book-covers. Ivory plaques were also used in 
the ornamentation of furniture, and carved ivory caskets 
for jewellery and toilet articles were numerous. The chair 
at Ravenna, called the throne of St. Maximian, is adorned 
with ivory reliefs dating probably from the sixth century, 
which represent on the front 
John the Baptist and four 
apostles, on the back and 
sides biblical scenes. The 
quality of these reliefs varies, 
the panels with scenes from 
the life of Joseph being less 
fine than the others (Fig. 96) . 
The composition is somewhat 
crowded, the heads and the 
eyes are rather large, and the 
drapery is not perfectly nat- 
ural, but the effect is good. 
The border of vines, with 
birds and beasts, is graceful 
and decorative. These re- 
liefs are probably of Syrian 
or Egyptian origin ; a second 
group, represented by an 
ivory book-cover in Ravenna, appears to be Syrian, but 
is somewhat different in style; and several other groups 
have been distinguished, all of eastern origin. 

Thh Second, Third, and Fourth Periods. Ivories. — There 
is little or no large sculpture in wood or stone of the second 
period, when religious paintings and images were under the 
ban of the church. The ivory carvings exhibit more secular 
and mythological subjects, and some of them are beautifully 
designed and executed. In the third period the ivories con- 
tinue to be numerous. They vary greatly in execution, in 
design, and in subject, though most of the subjects are, as 
in the first period, religious. The number of figures in the 

FiGUBE 96. — Ivory Reliefs from the 
"Throne of Maximian." Ravenna. 


scenes is sometimes considerable, in other instances single 
figures are represented in dignified attitudes, often with rich 
drapery. In the fourth period there was a revival of the art 
of painting, and some decorative sculpture, for instance, 
over the door of the church (now mosque) called Kahrie 
Djami, at Constantinople, attains no slight degree of beauty 
and truth to life. 

Metal Work, etc. — In metal work, so far as it comes under 
the head of sculpture, the development is parallel to that of 
ivory carving. The designs of the metal-workers, as of the 
i\ory-carvers, seem to have been derived in great measure 
from the miniatures contained in books. These in turn 
were made under the influence of the great paintings and 
mosaics which adorned the walls of churches or, in the case 
of mythological subjects, were inspired by works of Hellenis- 
tic or classical Greek art. The carvings in steatite, serpen- 
tine, and similar materials resemble those in ivory, but most 
of them are of inferior quality, only a few possessing any 
great interest as works of art. The ivories and the steatite 
carvings were colored and gilded, and much of the metal 
work was enriched with colored enamels and stones. The 
influence of miniature painting extended to the coloring as 
well as to the design. 

Byzantine carvings, and works in metal, were carried in 
great numbers to western Europe by trade, as gifts, and as 
plunder, and in the Middle Ages, when a new civilization 
was rising on the ruins of the Roman Empire, served as incen- 
tives and, in a measure, as models for the earliest artists of 
the western nations. Therein, even more than in the beauty 
which they undeniably possess, lies their chief importance. 


The Invasions of Barbarians. — At the time of Constantino 
the Roman Empire included all of Europe, except Ireland 
and the northern part of the British Isles, Norway, Sweden, 
and Denmark, the northern part of Russia, and the north- 
eastern regions of Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Em- 
pire. But vast hordes of fierce barbarians, for the most part 
of Germanic race, attacked the Roman Empire, overran the 
provinces, and finally put an end to the Empire of the West 
in all but name. The art of sculpture, which was already 
deteriorating, could not survive the barbarian conquests. 

The barbarians brought with them a kind of decorative 
art which they applied chiefly to weapons, goldsmith's work, 
and jewellery. Their decorations consisted of interlacing 
curves and geometrical patterns, sometimes varied by the 
forms of fantastic animals. Some of the elements of this 
decoration seem to be oriental (rosettes, six-rayed stars, 
etc.), and were probably learned when the Goths and other 
invaders of western Europe were themselves dwelling on the 
confines of Asia. When they appeared in western Europe, 
the art of the Byzantine Empire was everywhere prevalent, 
and the rise of the Arab power, which spread over northern 
Africa, Sicily, and Spain, further strengthened the eastern 
influence. It is therefore not surprising that the art of the 
early Middle Ages seems more than half oriental, and possesses 
little originality. 

Conditions in Europe before the Eleventh Century. — Condi- 
tions were not everywhere the same. Italy continued for 
centuries to belong in part to the Byzantine Empire and to 
retain something of ancient civilization. There artists from 



the East continued to practise their arts, and native crafts- 
men learned to imitate them. Sculpture, however, was 
chiefly confined to work in metal, and few remains of it exist. 
Perhaps the six saints on the wall of the church of Santa 
Maria in Valle at Cividale and the Christ enthroned between 
Peter and Paul in the church of St. Ambrose at Milan — 
colored and gilded stucco reliefs of life size — may give some 
idea of the sculpture in precious metals with which Byzantine 
artists enriched the churches of Rome in the eighth and ninth 
centuries. The date of these two works is, however, not 
perfectly certain. Sculpture in stone before the eleventh 
century consists almost entirely of scrollwork with little or 
no modelling, and the few figure reliefs which exist are rudely 
carved, with flat surfaces. The revival of art under Charle- 
magne, called the Carolingian renaissance, afi^ected architec- 
ture and miniature painting far more than sculpture, in Italy 
as in the other parts of his dominions. In France, Germany, 
and England sculpture, so far as it was practised at all before 
the eleventh century, was virtually confined to flat scroll- 
work. In some instances the patterns seem to be copied 
from pressed bricks, such as were used in the adornment of 
late Roman buildings. The few attempts at representation 
of human beings are rude and clumsy. So far as sculpture 
is concerned, the period from the sixth to the beginning of 
the eleventh century is barren, for it is not until the eleventh 
century that the rise of mediaeval sculpture in Europe begins. 
Then it begins at about the same time in Italy and in the 
countries north of the Alps. 

Divisions of Mediaeval Art. — Mediaeval art is the art of 
the period from the beginning of the eleventh century to the 
Renaissance, roughly speaking, from 1000 to 1400 a.d., 
though in some countries the fifteenth century still belongs 
to the Middle Ages. The art of the first half of this long 
period is connected with Romanesque, or Romanic, architec- 
ture, that of the second half with Gothic architecture ; it is 
therefore usual to speak of Romanesque and Gothic sculp- 
ture. The line between the two cannot be sharply drawn, 
for the progress of art is everyw^here and always continuous, 


though it is not equally rapid at different times or in different 
places, nor is the form of progress at different places neces- 
sarily the same. It is therefore only in a general way true 
that the four centuries of mediaeval art are about equally 
divided between Romanesque and Gothic art. 

Everywhere, and especially in Germany, the mediaeval 
sculptor struggles to express in plastic form the teachings 
and sentiments of the Christian religion ; but his conceptions 
are greater than his artistic abilities. The great Byzantine 
mosaics lead him to give a somewhat rigid frontality to his 
figures, and his technique is affected by ivory carvings, 
miniatures, and ancient sarcophagi. Not until the thirteenth 
century is beauty of form achieved. 

Mediaeval Sculpture in Italy. — In the latter part of the 
eleventh century sculpture began to revive in all parts of 
Italy. At first the artists limited their choice to sacred sub- 
jects which they executed in metal or ivory, sometimes deriv- 
ing their inspiration from the works of the Carolingian 
renaissance, but more often imitating the art of the East, 
or that of Germany where the Carolingian tradition survived 
under the Othos. In southern Italy the Byzantine influence 
was strong even in the twelfth century, and some Islamic 
influence is also observed ; in Rome and Tuscany the Byzan- 
tine influence was somewhat less strong, and the remains of 
classic art affected the work of the early mediaeval sculptors ; 
in Lombardy sculpture in stone begins to show French in- 
fluence in the twelfth century. In Rome, as also in southern 
Italy, sculpture was employed in combination with bright 
colored mosaic work, and this style spread to other regions. 
The early sculpture of Venice was Byzantine in character, as 
is natural in view of the constant close relations of Venice 
with the Eastern Empire. In general, mediaeval sculpture in 
Italy was less a part of architecture than in northern Europe. 
It was decorative in character, and was almost entirely 
confined to relief work, though a few statues in Rome and 
in southern Italy were produced in the thirteenth century. 

Ivory. — The only important work in ivory of the eleventh 
century is the altar of the cathedral of Salerno. This is 



adorned with plates of ivory on which scenes from the Old 
and New Testaments are represented. Byzantine models 
are followed, though somewhat freely, and the inscriptions 
are in Latin. 

Bronze Doors. — The sculptures of gold and silver created 
in the eleventh century have disappeared, but an interesting 

series of bronze 
doors still ex- 
ists. The earli- 
est of these, 
which date from 
the eleventh 
century, are 
purely Byzan- 
t ine . They 
were brought 
from Constanti- 
nople and are 
adorned with 
engraved and 
damascened fig- 
u r e s , only 
crosses and 
rosettes being 
cast in relief.^ 
In the latter 
part of the 
twelfth century, 
however, Bari- 

FiGUKB 97. — Panels of Bronze Door, Ravello. sanUS of Trani 

abandoned the method of damascening and covered his 
doors at Trani (about 1170), Ravello (1179; Fig. 97), and 
Monreale (about 1185) with reliefs, for which his models 
were Byzantine ivories and goldsmith's work. 
The reliefs on the doors of S. Zeno, at Verona, belong in 

^ Such doors exist at Amalfi, Monte Cassino, Atrani (1087), Monte 
Gargano (1076), all in southern Italy, and Rome (St. Paul's outside the 
Walls; 1070). Similar doors in Venice (St. Mark's) were made by local 
artists about 1110. 


part to the eleventh, in part to the twelfth century. The 
earlier are very rude, the later somewhat better. Here 
Byzantine models are not imitated, and scenes of the Old 
and New Testaments are arranged in parallel series. Verona 
was under Otho the Great the capital of what was virtually 
a German province, and the models for these reliefs must be 
sought in Germany, where a similar parallel series was exe- 
cuted under Bishop Bernward of Hildesheim about 1015. 
The art of casting doors with reliefs was practised also in 
central Italy, for Bonannus of Pisa signed the bronze doors 
of the main portal of the cathedral at Monreale, dated 1186, 
and was without doubt the artist of the similar doors of the 
cathedral at Pisa. Here the influence of Byzantine models 
is evident, but the execution is somewhat rude, and the 
figures lifeless and ill arranged. In the doors of the cathe- 
dral at Benevento, apparently of the latter part of the twelfth 
century, a local style with strong Byzantine characteristics 
is combined with the northern system seen in the doors of 
S. Zeno. 

Decorative Sculpture in Marble. — In the second half of 
the eleventh century decoration in relief appears on the 
marble furnishings, such as pulpits and episcopal chairs, 
in Italian churches, and also about the portals. At first 
such decoration consists almost exclusively of vegetable and 
animal forms in ornamental combination, and it is only in 
the course of the twelfth century that marble begins to be 
employed in the representation of religious scenes. 

Roman and Eastern Influence in Southern Italy. — In 
southern Italy decorative sculpture progressed rapidly in the 
eleventh and twelfth centuries. The episcopal thrones at 
Bari and Canosa (eleventh century) are powerful and impos- 
ing works, the former of which rests upon three vigorously 
modelled half-nude men, the latter upon two elephants. At 
the same time the portals and capitals were adorned with 
deeply cut vines and scrollwork, in which animal forms are 
mingled. Both Byzantine and ancient Roman work evi- 
dently furnished inspiration, if not actual models, for these 
decorations, among the most remarkable of which are the 



portal of St. Nicholas and a window of the cathedral (1190) 
at Bari. In Sicily sculpture, limited under the Saracen rule 
to such decorative work as the Mohammedan religion per- 
mits, was freed from limitations by the Norman conquest. 

The porphyry sarcophagi and 
the paschal candelabrum of the 
Capella Palatina at Palermo are 
probably native work, but the 
portal of the cathedral at Mon- 
reale (1185) resembles the sculp- 
tures of Bari. The capitals in 
the cloister of Monreale, sup- 
ported on shafts of varied forms 
adorned with rich carving and 
brilliant mosaics, are marvellous 
in their variety ; on them are 
represented all sorts of monsters 
and a series of biblical scenes 
(Fig. 98). The artists came 
from various places, but were 
for the most part, at least, 
from southern Italy, and their 
work has unity of feeling and 
technique. Here, as elsewhere 
in southern Italy, the influence 
of ancient Roman art is dis- 
cernible. This influence, sup- 
plemented apparently by study 
of nature, is still more evident in 
the works of Peregrino, the artist 
of the ambo (begun before 1224 
and finished after 1259) and 
other works at Sessa Aurunca, and 
possibly also of the reliefs which once decorated the ambones 
of Sta. Restituta at Naples. In the combination of mosaic 
with sculpture, which appears chiefly in southern Italy and 
at Rome, but which spread through other parts of Italy, 
oriental influence is evident. This was chiefly the result of 

Figure 98. — Group of Columns. 


the centuries of Byzantine rule, but may have been 
strengthened in southern Italy by the Saracen conquest. 

French Influence. — Toward the end of the twelfth cen- 
tury French influence appears in Apulian sculpture, probably 
either through the Benedictine abbey of Galena or through 
a school of Burgundian architecture established at Barletta 
by the canons of the Holy Sepulchre. The portals of Trani 
and Bitonto exhibit a curious mixture of Byzantine or Sara- 
cenic scrollwork and oriental monsters with biblical scenes, 
all executed in a somewhat barbarous manner, and a less 
distant resemblance to French work is seen in the portal at 
Ruvo, with its row of small angel figures in the archivolts; 
but in general the religious figure sculpture of Apulia is still 
tentative and clumsy, quite subordinate to the really mag- 
nificent decoration in oriental style. Throughout the thir- 
teenth century French influence upon sculpture in southern 
Italy was virtually confined to vine and scroll ornaments and 
small figures. 

Art under Frederick II. — Frederick II, however (1212- \ " 
1250), was an admirer and collector of works of ancient art, 
and the sculptors whom he employed imitated ancient Roman 
work. The arch which he caused to be built at Capua in 
1240 was adorned, like a Roman arch of triumph, with reliefs 
and statues, some of which have been preserved and are now 
in the museum at Capua. Among them are a seated figure 
of Frederick II, now unfortunately headless, busts of two 
counsellors of the king, and a female head, crowned with a 
garland of ivy, which personifies the city of Capua. The 
artists of these dignified and impressive works in the round 
derived their inspiration from ancient Roman statues. Who 
the artists were is not known, but they were probably Cam- 
panians or Apulians, unless indeed we may surmise that they 
were brought from Rome, where sculpture in the round was 
beginning to appear at this time. A bust found at Castel 
del Monte, near Andria, shows similar qualities, and a sur- 
vival of the school of sculpture which came into being under 
Frederick II is seen in a dignified, though somewhat heavy, 
female head which surmounts the pulpit at Ravello (1272). 


TJw Ahrnzzi. — In the Abruzzi some decorative carvings 
in wood, in soft stone covered with stucco, and in limestone 
were produced in the twelfth century, but such figure sculp- 
ture as appears until near the end of the thirteenth century 
seems to be almost entirely the work of French or Lombard 

Rome. — At Rome the love of color, and especially of 
mosaic, which was a heritage from the time of Byzantine 
rule, seems to have hindered the development of sculpture. 
Church furnishings were of marble, decorated with carved 
scrollwork and brilliant mosaics, and sculpture was absent 
also from the facades of churches. A carved font at Grotta- 
ferrata, of the eleventh century, is a rude example of Byzan- 
tine work by some local artisan, and the well-head at S. 
Bartolommeo all' Isola, of the twelfth century, decorated with 
figures of the Saviour, the martyred bishops Adalbert and 
Paulinus, and S. Bartholomew, is carved in the manner of 
the late Roman sarcophagi. The paschal candlestick at St. 
Paul's outside the Walls is somewhat later, but still of the 
twelfth century. It is signed by Niconaus de Angelo and 
Petrus Bassalettus. The reliefs with which it is covered rep- 
resent the scenes of the Passion. The iconography seems to 
imitate that of Byzantine ivories, and the carving, rude as it 
is, recalls that of Roman sarcophagi. This Bassalettus (or 
Vassalletto), or more probably his son, was the architect of 
the cloister of the Lateran, in which rich scrollwork and plant 
ornament inspired by classic Roman models are combined 
with mosaic for the decoration of the graceful and delicate 
architecture. Reliefs fill the spandrels, spirited heads appear 
in the cornices, and two lions at the sides of the passage 
between the cloister and the garden bear some resemblance 
to works of the last period of the Roman Empire. The 
sphinxes beside them are imitations of the Egyptian monu- 
ments which were popular at Rome under Hadrian. This 
cloister was built between 1220 and 1230. 

Families of Artists at Rome. The Cosmati. — The family 
of Bassalettus, or Vassalletto, is known through three genera- 
tions, from about 1150 to about 1260. Other family schools 


at Rome were those of Paulus (about 1 100-1200), Ranucius 
(about 1135-1209), Laurentius (about 1 160-1231), and Cos- 
mas, or Cosmatus (about 1276-1332). All of these com- 
bined architectural forms with decorative carving and bright 
colored mosaic, but sculpture was not their chief concern. 
The most productive of these artists was apparently Giovanni 
Cosmati, who flourished about 1300, and it is probably from 
him that work of this kind received the name "Cosmati 
work." Such work is not confined to Rome, but when it ap- 
pears elsewhere in central and northern Italy it is doubt- 
less the work of Roman artists or is due to their influence. 
Perhaps the most notable achievement of these Roman 
artists was the invention of a type of tomb in which a canopy 
projects over the sarcophagus. 

Two statues of Sts. Peter and Paul, of about life size, 
which once stood in front of the fagade of St. John Lateran, 
may belong to the twelfth century. Their proportions are 
clumsy, but the details are well wrought, and the folds of 
the drapery, which evidently imitate ancient work, are 
simple and natural. They, and a similar statue of a kneeling 
Pope, which may have formed a group with them, were set 
against a background decorated with mosaic. A few similar 
statues of somewhat later date also exist to show that statuary 
was not unknown in Rome in the twelfth and thirteenth 

Early Tuscan Sculpture. — In Tuscany sculpture hardly 
appears before the second half of the twelfth century. The 
reliefs on the lintels of Sant' Andrea at Pistoia, signed by 
Gruamons and Rudolfino in 1166 and 1167, and those at San 
Giovanni fuor Civitas by Gruamons are monotonous, with 
lifeless drapery, regularly divided by circular folds. At 
Lucca equally crude reliefs on the portals of San Salvatore 
are signed by Biduino. The carvings on the pulpit at Grop- 
poli, dated 1194, and the relief by Buonamicus in the Campo 
Santo at Pisa, which last is a work of the thirteenth century, 
are crude and lifeless. The better reliefs which decorate 
church furnishings of the first half of the thirteenth century 
in Tuscany are the work of Lombard sculptors. 


Only at Pisa did Tuscan sculptors of this period produce 
work of real merit. On the jambs and lintels of the chief 
portal of the baptistery are figures of the Apostles, draped in 
ancient fashion, and also scenes of the Descent into Hell, 
the life of St. John the Baptist, and a group of the Redeemer, 
the Virgin, and St. John the Baptist, all delicately carved in 
imitation of Byzantine ivories, reminding us that the bronze 
doors by Bonannus of Pisa were strongly Byzantine in style. 
Beside the door are two great columns, covered with richly 
carved acanthus scrolls, and among the foliage the outlines 
of women in tunics and of half-nude nymphs appear. The 
imitation of the reliefs on ancient Roman sarcophagi is evi- 
dent, and the work is as delicate as that of the portal itself. 
The sculptured columns of the cathedral at Lucca are to be 
attributed to the school of Pisa, which in these few works 
exhibits, like the Roman school, though in a different way, 
a desire to bring to life again the beauty of ancient art. 

Early Lovibard Sculphire. — In Lombardy and northern 
Italy generally the decorative sculpture which arose at the 
end of the eleventh century exhibits a combination of scroll- 
work with forms of beasts and monsters. The few human 
figures are rude imitations of Carolingian ivories. The figures 
in the reliefs of the Porta Romana at Milan by Anselmo 
(1167-1171) are historically interesting, but rude and coarse 
in design and execution. In the twelfth and thirteenth cen- 
turies the portals of churches at Modena, Parma, Piacenza, 
Ferrara, and Verona are decorated with porches, the columns 
of which rest on the backs of lions, while the archivolts and 
tympana, as well as the walls beside the doors, are covered 
with reliefs representing scenes of biblical story, of the lives 
of saints, or even, at Verona, of mediaeval legend. The cathe- 
dral at Modena was founded in 1099. Its porch, naturally 
of somewhat later date, is signed by Wiligelmus (Guglielmo, 
William), and another Wiligelmus signed the reliefs of New 
Testament scenes on the facade of S. Zeno at Verona. These 
reliefs are flat, the figures heavy and ill proportioned.^ The 

' The Wiligelmus who worked at Verona is not identical with Wiligelmus 
of Modena, but is somewhat later in date. The two works differ in style, 


scenes from Genesis carved on the same fa9ade are signed by 
Nicholaus (Nicolo), who signed also works at the cathedral 
of Verona, at Sagra San Michele, and at the cathedral of 
Ferrara, and was doubtless the author of the portal at Pia- 
cenza. His reliefs are less flat, and the proportions of his 
figures better, than those of either Wiligelmus, but they 
belong clearly to the same school. In arrangement and in 
choice of subject these reliefs call to mind the rich adornment 
of the slightly later French portals. So, too, the carved capi- 
tals of the cloister of Sant' Orso, at Aosta, in Piedmont, and 
the reliefs of a choir-screen, dated 1189, at Vezzolano, in 
Montferrat, show that French sculpture was not unknown 
to the stone-cutters of northern Italy. 

Benedetto, called Antelami. — The most original sculptor 
of northern Italy in the twelfth century is Benedetto, called 
Antelami, whose earliest known work, the ambo for the cathe- 
dral at Parma, is dated 1178. Of this very little remains, 
but a panel, probably from the tomb of Nicodemus, exists, 
on which the Descent from the Cross is represented. The 
background of the panel is covered with delicate scrollwork 
and inscriptions, an oriental trait, such as is seen in some 
church furnishings in Apulia. The figures are slender and 
the drapery fine but artificial, as if ivory carving or gold- 
smith's work had served as a model ; there is, however, noth- 
ing Byzantine in the composition. The decoration of the 
cathedral at Parma, of which Benedetto was the architect, is 
truly monumental, and shows that the artist was acquainted 
with the consistent and unified scheme of decoration 
developed by the French architects and sculptors. This is 
seen especially in the portals, one of which is shared by St. 
John the Baptist and the Virgin, the other being entirely 
devoted to the glory of Christ. The date given on one of 
the portals is 1196. The system of the composition, with 
its balanced arrangement of corresponding figures and reliefs, 
is clearly that of the French churches, but it is adapted to 
the purely Italian architecture, not merely copied. The 

though both are clumsy and both exhibit somewhat the same spirit. See 
A. K. Porter, American Journal of Archaeology, XIX, 1915, pp. 137-154. 


similar decoration of the cathedral at Borgo San Donnino, 
near Modena, is doubtless also by Benedetto. 

Lombard Sculpture in Other Parts of Italy. — Lombard 
sculpture, enriched and dignified by contact with French art, 
spread to many parts of Italy. Lombard artists were em- 
ployed at Venice and in Tuscany, where Guido of Como 
worked for Pistoia in 1211, for Lucca about 1235, and for 
Pantano, near Pistoia, in 1250. His works are recognizable 
by the roundness of the forms and by the black stone set in 
the centre of the eyes. Not all Lombard work of this time 
is of equal value, but it all exhibits a good average of skill. 
In the thirteenth century the word "Comacino" seems to be 
applied to sculptors in general, which may indicate that Como 
and its neighborhood produced many workers of stone. 

Nicola Pisano. The Pulpit of the Baptistery at Pisa. — 
The first really great Italian sculptor is Nicola (or Nicolo) di 
Piero, called Nicola Pisano. His father came to Pisa from 
Apulia, and Nicola himself was apparently a Pisan by adop- 
tion only. His first dated work is the pulpit in the baptistery 
at Pisa (1260). This is a hexagonal structure, supported by 
^x coTumhs^t the corners, three of which stand on lions, and 
a central column the base of which is formed by a fantastic 
group in relief (Fig. 99). The trefoil arches, the forms of 
the mouldings, and the carving of the capitals show acquaint- 
ance with French architecture and give the pulpit its Gothic 
character. The spandrels are filled with reliefs of six prophets 
and the four evangelists, and figurines of Virtues occupy the 
corners above the capitals. In the five panels of the balus- 
trade the following scenes are represented: (1) the Annun- 
ciation and the Nativity, (2) the Adoration of the Magi, 
(.3) the Presentation in the Temple, (4) the Crucifixion, and 
(5) the Last Judgment. In many details of arrangement 
Nicola follows the traditions of his time, which were in the 
main Byzantine ; but his treatment of the figures is clearly 
inspired by pagan Roman sarcophagi. In fact, some of the 
figures are direct imitations of Roman work; for instance, 
the Virgin in the Adoration scene is a copy of the Phaedra on 
a sarcophagus now in the Campo Santo at Pisa, Moreover, 



the technique of the sarcophagi is followed in the use of the 
drill, especially in the carving of the hair. The combination 
of elements derived from Byzantine, French, and ancient 
Roman art would be more natural in the work of an Apulian 
than of a Tuscan artist, for all these elements were present in , 
Apulia ; but no artist had hitherto combined them in a work 
of such essential 
unity, such 
beauty, and such 
dramatic power. 
The central mo- 
ments of Christian 
story are here pre- 
sented with the 
dignity of ancient 
art and the truth 
of reality. The 
pulpit of the bap- 
tistery at Pisa is 
the first great 
work of Italian 

The Pulpit at 
Siena. — In 1266 
Nicola was called 
to Siena to erect 
a pulpit for the 
then unfinished 
cathedral. The 
contract, dated 
October 5, authorizes him to take as his assistants four 
pupils, among them his son Giovanni. Different hands 
were then employed in carving this pulpit, which was 
completed in two years, but the design is throughout the 
work of Nicola himself. The structure is larger than the 
pulpit at Pisa, and is octagonal, not hexagonal. The scenes 
on the panels are the same as at Pisa, except that the Visita- 
tion takes the place of the Annunciation, and two new scenes, 

Figure 99. 

Pulpit in the Baptistery at Pisa ; by 
Nicola Pisano. 


the Slaughter of the Innocents and Angels driving the 
Damned into Hell, occupy the added panels. All the panels 
are larger than those of the Pisan pulpit, but the space gained 
is filled with additional figures ; the composition is therefore 
crowded and lacking in clearness. The figures themselves, 
however, are more beautiful than those at Pisa, the faces 
have more the effect of portraits, there is more evident study 
of life and more dramatic intensity. The large statuettes, or 
high reliefs, at the corners of the balustrade are admirably 
graceful and dignified ; that which represents the Virgin of 
the Annunciation is exquisite in its feminine grace. The 
spandrels of the arches, the spaces above the columns, and 
the great base of the central column are all occupied by sig- 
nificant figures, such as were familiar in the decoration of 
French churches, but had been unknown hitherto in Italy. 
The Christ of the Last Judgment and the Virgin standing 
erect and holding the Child are also derived from French 
monumental art. The northern influence is much stronger 
here than in the pulpit at Pisa. 

Other Works of Nicola. — Other works of Nicola are the 
lintel and tympanum of a side portal of the cathedral at 
Lucca and probably some, at least, of the colossal heads 
above the lowest colonnade of the baptistery at Pisa. Unfor- 
tunately most of these last were remodelled in the nineteenth 
century. The Descent from the Cross in the tympanum at 
Lucca is a powerful and dramatic composition, admirably 
arranged to fill the semicircular space. This is probably an 
early work of the master. The heads at Pisa may well belong 
to his later years. 

The great fountain at Perugia, dated 1278, was the work 
of Nicola and his son Giovanni. On the fifty-four panels of 
the lower basin are reliefs representing the signs of the Zodiac, 
Romulus and Remus with the wolf, the Works of the Months, 
and other subjects, and at the twenty-four corners of the 
upper basin are figures of saints, patriarchs, and the Liberal 
Arts. Here the imitation of ancient art, so noticeable in the 
pulpit of the baptistery, is hardly to be discovered. The 
figures of the Liberal Arts, which are the work of Giovanni, 


are almost entirely French in spirit. In 1265 Nicola received 
an order for the marble area or chest in which the relics of St. 
Dominic were solemnly laid in 1267 in the great church at 
Bologna. It may be that Nicola designed the area, but the 
actual work seems to have been done by his pupil Fra 

Of Nicola's life virtually nothing is known except the dates 
of his two pulpits and of the fountain at Perugia. Probably 
he died not far from 1280, when he must have been advanced 
in years. His known works are few, but they suffice to 
establish his position as the first great Italian sculptor. 

Giovanni Pisano. — Giovanni Pisano (about 1250-1328), 
son of Nicola, assisted his father at Siena (1266-1268) and 
at Perugia. For twenty years after 1278 he was active 
chiefly as an architect, and he was made capoTnaestro of the 
cathedral at Siena in 1284. In 1298 he accepted an order 
for the pulpit in the church of S. Andrea at Pistoia, which 
occupied him for three years. In 1302 he began the pulpit 
for the cathedral at Pisa, which was finished in 1310. These 
two pulpits are his most important works of sculpture, though 
lesser works, including four statues of the Virgin and Child, 
are interesting and beautiful. 

The pulpit at Pistoia is still intact. It is hexagonal, lUie 
Nicola's pulpit in the baptistery at Pisa. The subjects 
of the chief reliefs are the same as those of Nicola's first 
pulpit, with the Massacre of the Innocents substituted for 
the Presentation. But there is here no trace of the serene 
beauty of ancieht sculpture. The composition is crowded, 
the action exaggerated, the proportions unnatural, the heads 
all bent to one side or the other, the faces contorted, and the 
drapery lacking in grace ; but the work is full of movement 
and passion, as if it were the rapid outpouring of a vehement 

The pulpit of the cathedral at Pisa (Fig. 100) is no longer 
entire. It was ten-sided, and its nine panels reproduce the 
scenes of the pulpit at Siena, with the addition of the Birth 
of St. John the Baptist before the Nativity and a confused 
group of scenes of the Passion before the Crucifixion. In 



these panels the movement and vehemence of the reliefs at 
Pistoia have become mere disorder, but the small group below 
the lectern (now in Berlin), the dead Christ raised from the 
tomb and supported by angels, is affecting and impressive. 
Of the outer supports of the pulpit five are simple shafts 
resting upon lions ; [the other five have the form of statues 
or CtUXiitides, symbolical figures, admirably posed and 
grouped. In these supports Giovanni reverts in some meas- 
ure to imitation of ancient^rt. 
In one a ^Hercules appears, and 
the nude figure of Prudence has 
the attitude of the Venus de' 
Medici; but the classic in- 
fluence is far less strong than 
in the works of Nicola. In gen- 
eral, the attitudes remind one 
rather of French art of the latter 
part of the thirteenth century, 
when monmnental severity was 
yielding to sinuous, curved out- 
lines. These figures, however, 
and the same is true of Gio- 
vanni's Virgins, lack the almost 
fri\'olous grace of the French 
works ; they arejmassive and 
powerful in form, and the ex- 
pression of the faces is attuned 
to grief andwoe". Undoubtedly 
Giovanni Pisano learned from French art, as iiad his father, 
but his own genius was individual, .with less concern for 
beauty than for passionate intensity. /! 

Pupils of Nicola. Fra Guglielino. — Of the pupils of 
Nicola Pisano two only, apart from his son Giovanni, call 
for particular mention, Fra Guglielmo d' Agnello of Pisa 
(about 1238-after 131.3) and Arnolfo di Cambio of Florence 
(1232-1301). Fra Guglielmo is probably the author of the 
ambo in the cathedral at Cagliari in Sardinia (1260) and cer- 
tainly of that in San Giovanni fuor Civitas at Pistoia. The 

, Figure 100. — Pulpit by 
Giovanni Pisano ; formerly in 
the Cathedral at Pisa. 



figures of the former are heavy and ill formed, but those of 
the latter have the vigor and energy of the figures carved on 
Roman sarcophagi. Evidently Fra Guglielmo had followed 
Nicola in his a;ppreciation of ancient art. When, in 1265, 
Nicola received the order for the area of St. Dominic at 
Bologna, it was Fra Guglielmo the Dominican who actually 
carved the sarcophagus of 
the founder of his order. 
The work of these reliefs 
is skilful, but lacks inspi- 
ration. The chief interest 
of the area, apart from 
the additions made to it 
at later times, lies in the 
fact that through its 
means the influence of the 
Pisan school, with its 
mingled traits of ancient 
and French art, was car- 
ried beyond the Apen- 

Amolfo di Cambio. — 
Arnolfo di Cambio was 
one of those who assisted 
in the creation of the pul- 
pit at Siena. He was also 
called, in 1277, to work 
with Nicola and Giovanni 
Pisano in Perugia. In 
the interval he was with 
Charles of Anjou at Naples 
and also at Rome, whither he doubtless returned in 1278. 
His most important work is the tomb of the French Car- 
dinal Guillaume de Braye at Orvieto (1282; Fig. 101). 
The Cosmati at Rome had erected tombs in which the sar- 
cophagus had above it a .canopy with a pointed roof. From 
this simple form Arnolfo developed a monument of great 
magnificence and beauty. The base and the front of the 

Figure 101. — Tomb of Cardinal de 
Braye. Orvieto. 


sarcophagus are decorated with mosaics and twisted columns, 
and on the sarcophagus, as on a rich bed, lies the figure of 
the dead cardinal. Two angels draw apart the curtains of 
the bed. Above, two saints present the kneeling cardinal to 
the Virgin, who sits, a queenly figure, at the summit of the 
monument. Other works of Arnolfo are the tabernacles of 
St. Paul's outside the Walls and St. Cecilia in Trastevere, 
several tombs, among them that of Cardinal Anchero, and 
the seated statue of Charles of Anjou, all at Rome, besides 
various works elsewhere. He combined the sculpture of the 
Pisan school with the decorative style of the Roman artists, 
and under his influence a strong Roman school might have 
arisen, had the removal of the Pope to Avignon not in- 

Tino di Camaino. — Tino di Camaino (?-1337), another 
who had worked on the pulpit at Siena, was a pupil of 
Giovanni rather than of Nicola. Most of his work consists 
of tombs. In 1313 he erected the monument of the Emperor 
Henry VII at Pisa, the first tomb in which, above the form 
of the deceased extended on the sarcophagus, the same 
person appears again as in life, surrounded by living persons. 
In 1321 Tino carved the tomb of Bishop Antonio Orso, at 
Florence. In 1323 he went to Naples, where the tombs of 
Catherine of Austria, Mary of Hungary, Duke Charles of 
Calabria, and Marie of Valois are his work. In these he 
exhibits great magnificence and rich decoration, but he had 
not Nicola's appreciation of the beauty of the human form, 
and the dramatic intensity of Gio\'anni, even had Tino been 
able to reproduce it, would have been out of place in funerary 
monuments. His works were much imitated in Naples, espe- 
cially by the two Florentines, Giovanni and Pace, whose 
most admirable work is the splendid tomb of King Robert 
the Wise (about 1345). Through Goro di Gregorio, of 
Siena, and Giovanni di Balduccio, of Pisa, the teachings of 
the Pisan school were carried to Sicily and Lombardy. 
/ Andrea Pu-ano. — Andrea di Ugolino di Nino, called 
' Andrea Pisano (1273-1348), was born at Pisa. He was a 
pupil of Giovanni Pisano, but went to Florence, where he 



came under the influence of the great painter Giotto. His 
first attested work is the series of rehefs on the bronze door 
of the baptistery (Fig. 102). Twenty panels tell the story 
of the life of John the Baptist, the remaining eight contain 
figures of the Virtues. The groups contain as few figures 
as possible and the composition is perfectly clear. The 
draperies fall in long, curving folds, the faces are calm, the 
attitudes graceful, the rhythm of composition and harmony 
of line remarkable. 
There is no trace of the 
tumultuous passion of 
Giovanni Pisano. 
Only in occasional de- 
tails of costume is 
there a hint of imita- 
tion of ancient art, 
but the calm beauty 
of antiquity is ex- 
pressed in terms which 
originated, at least in 
part, in the art of 
France. The second 
great work of Andrea 
is the series of reliefs 
which decorate the 
campanile. All may 
have been designed by 
Giotto, but not all 
were executed in his 
della Robbia in the 

Figure 102. — Panels ot the Bronze 
Door, by Andrea Pisano. (The frieze is by 
Vittorio Ghibertl, sou of Lorenzo.) 

time ; five were carved by Luca 
m the fifteenth century. Of the fifty-four 
medallions the most interesting are those which represent 
the works of man, agriculture, commerce, and various trades. 
Twenty-one of these are by Andrea. Here he gives evidence 
of careful study of ancient sculpture, but still more of obser- 
vation of real life. The movements are natural, the forms 
and draperies simple, the grouping clear, the heads noble and 
refined. A 

Orcdgna. — Andrea di Cione, called Orcagna (1329-1368), 


was a pupil of Giotto, and was primarily a painter. His 
only known work of sculpture is the tabernacle in the church 
of Or San Michele. The architectural frame of the taber- 
nacle is splendid with colored mosaic, and the reliefs are well 
adapted to this brilliant setting. They form a cycle, eight 
scenes of the life of the Virgin, with choirs of angels and the 
figures of the three theological Virtues. There are many 
figures, much movement, and great splendor. Nothing re- 
calls the gentle simplicity of Andrea's panels; but here an- 
other side of Giotto's teaching is seen, expressed with the 
power of a genius, but one who lacked the feeling for grace 
and beauty so evident in Andrea's work. 

Nino Phsano. — Andrea Pisano's son Nino (died before 
1368) settled at Pisa and is called Nino Pisano. He was an 
artist of a gentle talent, whose attractive and lifelike reliefs 
are justly admired. In these his style resembles that of his 
father. He was also the author of a considerable number of 
statues, the most notable being his charming figures of the 
Virgin. These are of two types, the one standing, with the 
Child in her arms, the other the youthful Virgin of the 
Annunciation. For both he is indebted to French models, 
but he breathes into them his own gentle spirit. 

The Fa<^ade at Orvieto. — Of the sculptors who worked 
under Giovanni Pisano on the cathedral at Siena none attained 
greatness. They seem to have come imder the influence of 
Andrea Pisano and Giotto, and many attractive works in 
Siena and various places in Tuscany are ascribed to them. 
The greatest work of the school is the fa9ade of the cathedral 
at Orvieto, especially the reliefs of the lower part. The 
general design is probably due to Lorenzo Maitani, who was 
capomaestro of the cathedral from 1310 to 1330, but its execu- 
tion was the work of many years and many hands. At the left 
of the central door the Tree of Jesse encircles with its branches 
scenes of the lives of the prophets and of the ancestors of 
Jesus. At the right scenes of the life of Christ are framed 
in similar branches. These two panels are the earliest, 
though even these were executed by different hands. They 
show the influence of Giovanni and even of Nicola Pisano; 



On the northern pier are scenes from Genesis (Fig. 103), and 
on the southern the Last Judgment. These panels are later 
than the others, and the two do not seem to be by one artist. 
Perhaps they may be the work of Andrea and Nino Pisano. 
In these reliefs exquisite workmanship and beauty of face 
and form are combined with rhythmic composition, freedom 

Figure 103. — The Creation and the Fall. Orvieto. 

of movement, and grace of attitude as nowhere else in the 
art of the fourteenth century. 

Giovanni di Balduccio. — The art of the Pisan school was 
carried to Lombardy by Giovanni di Balduccio, whose master- 
piece is the sarcophagus of St. Peter Martyr in the church 
of S. Eustorgio at Milan (1336-1340). The sarcophagus is 
supported by eight Virtues, it is adorned with reliefs, and 
above it are figures of the Virgin, St. Dominic, and St. Peter 
Martyr. On the pinnacles of the canopy are figures of 



Christ and two angels. The tombs of the Visconti in the 
same church are by Giovanni's Lombard pupils, and other 

works of the master and his 
school are numerous at 

Mediaeval Sculpture at 
Verona. — At Verona the 
tombs of the Scaligers show 
Pisan influence only in a 
few details; in general ap- 
pearance they differ widely 
from Pisan works. The 
earliest, that of Alberto, is a 
great sarcophagus adorned 
with acroteria at the cor- 
ners and a likeness of the de- 
ceased on horseback carved 
in relief on the front. The 
same motif occurs on a tomb 
at Bergamo, where a family 
of sculptors from Campione 
was established. The tomb 
of Can Grande, erected about 
1.330 over the door of Sta. 
Maria Antica, is adorned 
with religious and heraldic 
figures, and above it rises 
a pyramid surmounted by 
an equestrian statue. Still 
more splendid is the tomb 
of Martino II, a free-stand- 
ing monument with an eques- 
trian statue at its summit. 
But the most elaborate and 
complete development of this 
type is the hexagonal monument of Can Signorio, finished ia 
1374 and signed by Bonino da Campione (Fig. 104) . Probably 
the other tombs also are to be ascribed to the Campionesi, 

Figure 104. — Tomb of Can Signo- 
rio. Verona. 


whose works are not confined to Verona, but may be seen at 
Milan (tomb of Bernardo Visconti and some of the sculp- 
tures of the cathedral) and elsewhere. 

Mediaeval Sculpture in Venice. — In Venice Byzantine 
traditions survived even in the fourteenth century, but some 
works of the Pisan school were known, and the area of St. 
Dominic was at Bologna, not far away. The chief activity 
of sculptors in Venice at this time was in the decoration of 
the Doges' Palace, between 1340 and 1365. Here, in the 
sculptures which adorn the upper part and the capitals of 
the two facades, are many figures from sacred and profane 
history, of allegorical personages, and of workmen. In 
style they are not uniform, but their general excellence is 
remarkable. Probably they are for the most part the work 
of Lombard sculptors. Under Lombard and Florentine in- 
fluence, with a background of Byzantine tradition and some 
knowledge of Pisan and also of northern art, sculpture at 
Venice had attained before the end of the fourteenth cen- 
tury a high degree of variety, power, and technical excellence. 
Venetian sculptors whose works are to be seen in Venice and 
the neighboring cities are Jacopo Lanfrani, Antonio, Andriolo 
de Sanctis, about the middle of the century, and, toward the 
end of the century, the brothers Jacobello and Pier Paolo delle 

Late Mediaeval Sculpture in Florence. — At Florence pio: 
turesque relief sculpture, such as had occupied the Sienese 
branch of the Pisan school at Orvieto, passed in the second 
half of the fourteenth century into the hands of goldsmiths 
and silversmiths. Such metal reliefs as those of the altar of 
the baptistery (now in the Opera del Duomo), by Leonardo 
di Ser Giovanni, deserve a place beside the bronze door of 
Andrea Pisano. The marble workers of this time devoted 
themselves to the decoration of buildings, such as the loggia 
dei Priori, afterwards called the Loggia dei Lanzi, the loggia of 
the Bigallo, and the cathedral. In their statues they retained 
the qualities of the figures of Andrea Pisano, but imitated to 
some extent the ancient Roman draped statues. The deco- 
rative work about the side doors of the cathedral, the " Porta 



dei Canonici" at the south and the "Porta della Mandorla" 
at the north, consists, apart from the figures in the tjinpana, 
of beautiful vines, in the midst of which human and animal 

forms appear. The Mr- 
gin in the tympanum of 
the southern door is the 
M'ork of Lorenzo di Gio- 
vanni d' Ambrogio. The 
decoration of the Porta 
della ]\Iandorla, begun 
by Giovanni d' Ambrogio, 
the father of Lorenzo, was 
continued and finished by 
Xicola di Piero Lamberti, 
a sculptor from Arezzo, 
who in this work far 
surpassed the somewhat 
earlier decoration of the 
Porta dei Canonici (Fig. 
105). In subject, as in 
form, the figures he in- 
serted among the grace- 
ful acanthus branches are 
classic rather than mediaeval. They belong already to the 
art of the Renaissance, as does also the Madonna in the 
t\Tnpanum by Xanni di Banco. 

Figure 105. — Decoration of the Porta 
della Mandorla. Florence. 


Beginnings of Mediaeval Sculpture. Different Schools. — 
In France, as in Italy, mediaeval sculpture begins in the 
eleventh century, for the revival of art under Charlemagne, 
often called the Carolingian renaissance, had affected sculp- 
ture only in so far as metal work and ivory carving may be 
classed under that head. In those minor arts excellent work 
was accomplished at that time, but the few extant fragments 
of monumental sculpture are rude, clumsy, and childish. 
But in the eleventh century men began to try to adorn the 
doorways, capitals, and walls of churches with carvings, the 
subjects of which were supplied by the clergy from the canon- 
ical and apocryphal books of the Bible, from the liturgy, 
the legends of the saints, and similar sources. Remains 
of Gallo-Roman sculpture, Byzantine and Carolingian 
ivories and goldsmith's work, and the illuminations in manu- 
scripts served as models in some measure, and influenced the 
new art everywhere, though more in some places than in 
others. Everywhere, throughout the eleventh century, re- 
liefs were flat, proportions unnatural, attitudes awkward, 
features ill formed and expressionless; but by the end of 
the century so much progress had been made that seven 
different styles or schools can be distinguished : those of 
Auvergne, of Languedoc, of Burgundy, of the He de France, 
of Saintonge and Poitou, of Normandy, and of Provence. 
To be sure, the boundaries of these schools are not clearly 
defined, and the works of each school exhibit considerable 
variations, but certain general qualities and tendencies are 

The School of Auvergne. — The school of Auvergne arose 
in a region where the worship of Mercury had been popular 




in the days of the Roman Empire, where many Gallo-Roman 
statues and rehefs existed. From such remains of antiquity 
the early mediaeval sculptors seem to have derived their in- 
spiration. Thev' produced works in high relief, often with 
a good deal of undercutting. The forms and attitudes of 
their figures are expressive, but clumsy. Occasionally the 
influence of Byzantine miniatures or ivories is seen in elabo- 
rate draperies and delicate lines, but such influence seems to 
be due to contact with the schools of Burgundy or Languedoc. 
In choice of subjects this school shows a preference for alle- 
gorical figures, especially for the conflict of the Mrtues with 

the Mces, and among these the 
punishment of Avarice is most 
popular. The figure of the 
Good Shepherd is frequent, 
and among scenes from the 
life of Christ the Washing of 
the Feet, the Last Supper, the 
Temptation, the Carrying of 
the Cross, and the Last Judg- 
ment prevail. The favorite 
scenes from the Old Testament 
are : Daniel in the Lions' Den, 
Abraham's Sacrifice, Moses in 
the Bulrushes, Samson over- 
turning the Temple, and 
Jonah. The capitals of the church of Notre Dame du 
Pont, at Clermont, of the early part of the twelfth cen- 
tury, are good examples of the work of this school (Fig. 
106). One of these is signed by Ritlius, and several other 
works are so similar to this that they may be confidently 
assigned to the same sculptor or to his immediate pupils. 
The churches of Auvergne were all more or less closely con- 
nected with the great Burgundian Abbey of Cluny, which 
was a most important centre of culture, the influence of which 
spread far and wide. The sculpture of the valleys of the 
rivers that flow from the plateau of Auvergne, the Loire, 
the Cher, and others resembles that of Auvergne itself, but 

Figure 106. — Capital from Cler 



is affected by the schools of Burgundy and Languedoc, as 
well as by remains of Gallo-Roman sculpture. 

The School of Languedoc. — The school of Languedoc had 
its centre at Toulouse, which was in the eleventh and twelfth 
centuries the seat of a brilliant court. The earliest sculp- 
tures in the church of St. Sernin, at Toulouse, dating from 
the eleventh century, are still rude, but those of the cloister 
of St. Etienne, of the twelfth 
century, are elaborate in style 
and skilfully executed (Fig. 
107). Two of the best of the 
figures of Apostles in this clois- 
ter are signed by Gilabertus. 
The drapery of these figures is 
carefully carved, but artificial, 
the attitudes in some cases un- 
natural. In the capitals, which 
are of different dates in the 
twelfth century, great inventive 
ability and much progress in 
technical skill are evident, and 
this is true also of the capitals 
in the cloister of La Daurade. 
The church at Moissac, be- 
longing to the early part of the 
twelfth century, has already 
elaborate decoration, and its 
sculptures exhibit great life and 
originality. The tympanum of 
the cathedral at Cahors was 
filled, toward the end of the 
twelfth century, with a relief 
representing the ascension of Christ and episodes of the 
life of St. Stephen. This work is full of dignity, ex- 
pression, and beauty, though there are still some traces 
of archaism. Examples of the work of this school are 
found as far east as Provence, and some of the sculp- 
tures of Santiago de Compostela, in Spain, are the work 

Figure 107. — Relief from St. 
Etienne. Toulouse. 



of sculptors from Toulouse. In the southwestern parts 
of France, sculpture at this time was often, though not 
always, clumsy and coarse. Different qualities, derived 
from barbarian art, Gallo-Roman sculptures, and Byzantine 
ivories, appear in various combinations, but do not serve to 
form a consistent style. 

The School of Burgiauly. — The school of Burgundy had 
its centre in the great monastery at Cluny, of which, unfor- 

Figure 108. — Tympanum at Vfezelay (from the cast in the Trocadero, 

Paris) . 

tunately, there are now hardly any remains. The chief 
source of inspiration for the Burgundian sculptors were i^'ory 
carvings and miniatures. The attempt to reproduce in sculp- 
ture the effect of such small and elaborate works led to much 
detail in drapery and much liveliness of motion, but did not 
tend to temper dramatic effect with dignity or to develop 
roundness and depth of relief. The most brilliant works of 
this school are the sculptures of the narthex of the abbey at 
Vezelay and the portal of the church of Saint Lazare at 
Autun. The sculptures at Vezelay were carved not long 


after 1132. In the central tympanum the scene at Pentecost, 
the gift of the Holy Spirit, is represented (Fig. 108). In the 
centre is the Saviour, with His hands extended beneath the 
surrounding clouds. From His fingers long rays shoot forth 
to the disciples, whose ecstatic emotion is expressed by their 
attitudes and their rapt gaze. Nothing could be more per- 
fect than the carving of the folds of the garments, nothing 
more dramatic than the presentation of the scene. The 
sculptor exhibits both originality and most exquisite skill ; 
but it is evident that he has before his mind a finely painted 
miniature, all the details of which he tries to reproduce in 
sculpture. The figures on the lintel below and in the small 
compartments at the sides are wrought in the same manner. 
The tympanum at Autun, which is of -slightly later date, 
represents the Last Judgment. The face of the Judge of the 
world has been destroyed, but the preservation of the other ' 
figures is remarkably good. Here the same qualities of ex- 
quisite workmanship, dramatic power, and expressiveness are 
seen as at Vezelay, but here the elongated proportions of the 
figures are still more noticeable. The influence of the Bur- 
gundian school was widespread. 

The School of Saintonge and Poitou. — The school of Sain- 
tonge and Poitou difPered from those already discussed in 
giving a preponderant influence to architecture. Every- 
where in France sculpture is closely connected with architec- 
ture, not, as is usually the case in Italy, merely an added 
adornment, but in the Romanesque school of Saintonge and 
Poitou it is more subordinate to architecture than elsewhere. 
Here sculpture covers entire fa9ades, arcades shelter statues 
or high reliefs, arches and spandrels are enriched with ara- 
besques. A good example of this is the church of Notre Dame 
la ' Grande, at Poitou, the entire front of which is covered 
with arcades and sculpture. The date of this building is the 
middle of the twelfth century. The sculpture is not very 
fine in execution, but it is interesting as an example of the 
use of sculpture to decorate an entire front and also because 
the persons and groups represented form a sermon in stone, 
impressing upon the beholder the truth of the Christian faith. 



In general, the iconography is of unusual interest in the work 
of this school. 

The Schools of Normandy and of Provence. — In Normandy 
the sculpture of the eleventh century is rude, chiefly linear 

clearly and 
deeply, but not 
too finely, cut, 
a kind of orna- 
ment which is 
not unknown in 
other parts of 
France, and 
which is most 
familiar as it 
appears on Nor- 
man buildings in 
England. Fig- 
ure sculpture in 
Normandy at 
this time is 
closely con- 
nected with that 
of the He de 
France. The 
most brilliant 
examples of 
Provencal sculp- 
ture are the 
church and 
cloister of St. 
Trophime at 
Aries (Fig. 109) 
and the church of St. Gilles. Both of these date from the latter 
part of the twelfth century, and both exhibit rather a combi- 
nation of influences than any great originality. These influ- 
ences are French, from the He de France ; ancient, from Chris- 
tian sarcophagi ; Lombard, perhaps from Benedetto Antelami 

Figure 109. — Part of the Fafade of St. Trophime, 
Aries (from the cast in the Trocadero, Paris). 


and his school; and, in respect to ornament, oriental. In 
combination they produce an impressive and even beautiful 
whole, but the appearance of the sculptures is more archaic 
than their date would suggest. The sculpture of the cloister 
of St. Trophime is finer than that of the fa9ade, but even 
this is earlier in appearance than the contemporary work at 
Chartres. With all its richness, the sculpture of Provence 
is not the work of an original and independent school, but 
rather of able stone-cutters who are somewhat behind the 
times, and whose chief claim to originality rests upon their 
ability to combine for their own purposes elements derived 
from various sources. 

Sculpture in the lie de France. — In the He de France the 
sculpture of the eleventh century is heavy and crude, but 
the influence of the schools of Toulouse and Burgundy soon 
makes itself felt, and the school of the He de France, develop- 
ing with the growth of Gothic ^ architecture, rapidly becomes 
the dominant school of sculpture in France. Before the end 
of the thirteenth century it has spread, affected more or less 
by the previously existing local schools, not only to all parts 
of France, but also to Germany, England, Spain, and even 
Italy. Before the middle of the twelfth century the conven- 
tions retained by the other schools began to disappear in the 
He de France. Sculpture became on the one hand more 
natural, and on the other more perfectly adapted to architec- 
ture. At the same time the tendency to a consistent arrange- 
ment of sculptures, which should make them not a mere 
pleasure to the eye, but still more a means of edification, grew 
in strength. This in turn aided the development of sculp- 
ture, since it made it an indispensable part of every great 
church building. 

The Subjects of Gothic Sculpture of the Thirteenth Century. 
— Gothic sculpture of the thirteenth century is an interpre- 
tation of the teachings of Christian theology and religious 

' The term "Gothic" was first applied to the great mediaeval architec- 
ture of the pointed arch in the sixteenth century (by Raphael) as a term 
of derision. Needless to say, the Goths have nothing to do with it. The 
term is now applied also to the sculpture and painting which developed in 
connection with that architecture. 


literature. In the figured decoration of a great cathedral 
one can trace the general plan, the spirit, and even the prin- 
cipal divisions of the mediaeval encyclopaedias, such as the 
Speculum Mains, or Universal Mirror, of Vincent of Beauvais, 
in which the faith and learning of the age are expressed. The 
main divisions are Nature, Science, Ethics, and History. So 
the chief subjects of the sculptures of a great cathedral are 
as follows : the Creation and the Fall, leading to labor as a 
punishment ; hence the Labors of the Months, with the Signs 
of the Zodiac, and also the Liberal Arts or labors of the mind. 
Then follow the Prophets, the Patriarchs, and the Ancestors 
of Jesus, precursors and heralds of Him who should redeem 
mankind from the penalty of Adam's sin. The Redeemer 
was born of a Virgin, hence scenes from the Life of Mary 
■ and the Childhood of Jesvs. He goes about teaching and 
doing good, hence figures of Christ Teaching and the Apostles. 
He is crucified, is raised on the third day, and ascends into 
heaven ; scenes of the Passion, the Resurrection, and the 
Ascension occur, though thej' are very rare in the great sculp- 
ture of the thirteenth century. He comes to judge the quick 
and the dead ; scenes of the Last Judgment, of Heaven, and of 
Hell are very common. Since the life of the Christian is a 
constant struggle with temptation, representations of the 
Juices and the Virtues are natural, and since the saints aid the 
sinner and intercede for him, linages of Saints and scenes from 
the Lives of Saints can hardly be omitted. But the greatest 
of saints, who is above all saints and angels, is Our Lady 
(Notre Dame), the Mother of God; Statues of the Virgin, 
the Death of the \ 'irgin, and the Coronation of the Virgin are 
constantly repeated. 

The Arrangement of Figures. — Such are the figures which 
form the decoration of the cathedral. Their arrangement 
is no more a matter of chance than their selection. The 
central support of the lintel of the great central door is 
occupied by the figure of Christ ; at the sides of the door are 
the apostles, in the tympanum above is the Last Judgment ; 
the archivolts are covered with small figures of angels and 
the elect ; on the jambs of the door and the sides of the central 



support are figures 
of the wise and 
foolish virgins. The 
facade has two other 
doors. One of these 
is devoted to the 
Virgin, the other to 
the patron saint of 
the cathedral, whose 
statue occupies the 
central support of 
the lintel. One tym- 
panum represents 
the death of the Vir- 
gin or scenes from 
her life, the other 
scenes from the story 
of the saint. At the 
sides of the door of 
the Virgin are figures 
of Old Testament 
characters or statues 
representing the 
Presentation , the An- 
nunciation, the Visi- 
tation, or the Adora- 
tion of the Magi. 
The statues at the 
sides of the door of 
the patron saint 
represent other saints 
who are in some way 
especially connected 
with the church or 
its patron. Small 
figures or has reliefs 
occupy the archivolts 
of doors and windows 

Figure 110. — Statues of the Western Fagade 
of Chartres. 

or the lower part of the wall beside 



the doors. These represent scenes of the Creation, episodes 
chosen from the Old Testament, the Vices and Virtues, the 
Liberal Arts, the Works of the Months, and the Signs of 
the Zodiac. The figures which appear on the upper parts 

of the church, 

such as galleries 
or pinnacles, are 
often of colossal 
size ; they usu- 
ally represent 
Old Testament 
characters, some- 
times Adam and 
Eve and the 
Church and the 
Synagogue, or 
even, as at 
Rheims, angels. 

Symholism. — 
The choice and 
arrangement of 
figures, as de- 
scribed above, is 
seldom, perhaps 
only at Amiens, 
strictly adhered 
to ; but the gen- 
eral scheme can 
almost always be 
traced, even in 
the smaller 
churches, where 
many omissions 
occur. Symbolism, too, is everywhere to be found. Most 
of the Old Testament scenes and figures symbolize in one 
way or another the coming of Christ, His teachings, or the 
progress of His Church, the figures of the Church and the 
Synagogue are symbolic of the triumph of Christianity over 

Figure 111. 

-Statues of the Soutliern Porch of 



the Jewish religion, and various animal figures have their 
hidden meaning, though there are also many figures which 
are purely decorative.^ 

French Mediaeval Sculpture and Architecture. — The mediae- 
val sculptors of Italy worked almost exclusively in marble 
(if we except for the moment the workers in metal, ivory, 
and wood), and marble was not employed as building ma- 
terial; their works were therefore in great measure inde- 
pendent of architecture. In P'rance, on the other hand (as 
in northern Eu- 
rope generally 
and also in 
Spain), sculp- 
tures were 
carved in the 
very stone of 
which the build- 
ings were built. 
The figures and 
ornaments were 
integral parts of 
the buildings, 
not mere added 
Naturally, there- 
fore, French 
mediaeval sculpture is closely connected with architecture 
and develops with it. The figures which stand beside the 
doors of the western facade of the cathedral at Chartres 
(1150-1160) have the long, slender form of the columns 
before and among which they stand (Fig. 110). In execu- 
tion they are careful, sometimes almost exquisite, their 
attitudes are natural and dignified, and the faces are expres- 

FlGURE 112.- 

■ Statues of the Western Fagade of 

' The description of the iconography and arrangement of the decoration 
of the French Gothic church (which applies in great measure to the similar 
decoration of churches in other countries strongly influenced by French 
art) is taken, somewhat condensed, from Mile. Louise Pillion, Les Sculpieurs 
frangais du XIII'"^ SiMe, chapter III. Symbolism is discussed ibid., 
chapter IV. 



sive, but their subordination to their architectural function 
makes them appear rigid and unnatural. The sculptures of 
this fa9ade are now, since those of the portals of Saint Denis 
are lost, among the earliest important examples of sculpture 

of the He de 
France. The 
figure of Christ 
in the tympa- 
num of the cen- 
tral portal is at 
once dignified 
and gracious ; 
the proportions 
are correct, and 
the drapery, 
designed and 
executed with 
a delicacy equal 
to that of the 
flowing draper- 

FiGUEB 113. — Tympanum ot the Southern ies of Vezelay, 
Transept of Notre Dame, Paris; Door of St. retains little 
Stephen : Second Half ot Thirteenth Century (from , 

the cast in the Trocadero). that IS Conven- 

tional or un- 
natural, and reveals well-rounded and firm limbs beneath. 
The sculptors who worked in strict subordination to archi- 
tecture were also keen observers of nature. 

Important French churches are so numerous, and the mul- 
titude of figures which adorns each of them is so vast (at 
Chartres it exceeds 1000), the figures exhibit such infinite 
variety, and the number of masterpieces among them is so 
great, that a study of Gothic sculpture in detail is out of the 
question. We must content ourselves with a brief and very 
general treatment. 

Progress of Gothic Sculphire. Its Quantity. — The sculp- 
tures of the western facade at Chartres are still Romanesque, 
as is the architecture of which they form a part. They are 
still conventional in the details of drapery, and their work- 


manship, which is, at least in part, exquisite, recalls that of 
the figures which adorned the Acropolis at Athens before the 
Persian invasion. They are, moreover, strictly subordinate 
to architecture. In the tympanum of the southern door 
(door of St. Anne) of the western facade of the cathedral of 
Notre Dame at Paris and in the sculptures of the portal at 
Senlis, both of which are works of the last quarter of the 
twelfth century, there is greater freedom of motion and more 
simplicity of drapery ; only slight traces of archaism remain. 
Still further progress is seen in the two other western portals 
of Notre Dame at Paris (about 1220), and in the facade of 
Amiens Gothic sculpture is fully developed. The great 
cathedrals of Paris, Amiens,^ Rheims,^ Chartres,^ and Bruges,* 
to mention only a few of many, are not merely great works of 
architecture ; they are veritable museums of sculpture, 
crowded with statues and reliefs, each of which is in itself a 
work of art. We should remember also that the reliefs and 
statues were colored and gilded, which must have added 
greatly to the brilliancy of their effect. 

Methods of Work. Differences in Quality. Various Schools. 
— Not that these works of sculpture are all of equal value, 
for that is by no means the case. The creation of a great 
cathedral was the work of many hands, continued for years. 
In each instance some clerical scholar doubtless selected the 
persons and scenes to be represented, and determined their 
arrangement. Drawings were then prepared, perhaps by 
the architect in charge, and these drawings, apparently mere 
rough sketches, were given to the sculptors for their guidance. 
The sculptors were, in the thirteenth century, not distin- 
guished persons, like the artists of the present day, but were 

1 Sculptures of the western facade about 1230 ; the side portal (Vierge 
doree) about 1288. , . , , 

2 Founded in 1211 ; the sculptures of the small right-hand door of the 
northern transept are Romanesque ; those of the other two doors of the 
transept, and also some statues of the western facade, are to be dated about 
1220-1240 ; the remaining sculptures belong to the second half of the thir- 
teenth century (Fig. 112). Nearly all these beautiful works were destroyed 
in 1914. 

2 The western facade belongs to the twelfth century ; the sculptures of 
the portals of the transepts (Fig. Ill) are probably earlier than 1240, those 
of the porches that shield these portals probably very little later. 

■• The facade dates from the end of the thirteenth century. 



regarded as artisans, mere stone-cutters ; their names are 
almost entirely unknown. They worked side by side in the 
sheds by the church or on the scaffolding, each watching the 
work of his neighbor and learning from him. So a certain 
similarity pervades the sculpture of each great edifice, and 
we have a style of Amiens and a style of Rheims, and also 
general progress and development of ideals. But the work- 
men were not all of equal ability, and therefore in the same 
place and at the same time the works of different sculptors 
are of unequal merit. Occasionally it is possible to discern 
the master hand of one exceptional artist in several statues 
or reliefs, but this is unusual. As a rule, the individual is 
lost in the school. But the building and adornment of a 
great cathedral was the work of years, and sometimes the 
work was interrupted. In that case, or on the completion 
of the work, some, at least, of the stone-cutters went else- 
where for employment. So we see in some of the sculptures 
of Rheims the influence of the school of Amiens, and in those 
of Bamberg, in Germany, traces of the school of Rheims. 

Tendencies of Progress in the Thirteenth Century. — In 
general the tendency of sculpture throughout the thirteenth 
century is to free itself from dependence upon architecture. 
At first it is entirely subordinate, and its forms are, as in the 
western fa9ade at Chartres, assimilated to architectural 
forms ; then sculpture de^'elops greater freedom, but re- 
mains, as at Amiens, closely connected with its environment, 
so that it forms with the architecture one harmonious whole ; 
later, sculpture claims an independent position and some- 
times, whatever its merits, fails to harmonize with its archi- 
tectural setting. This lack of harmony is seen occasionally 
before the end of the thirteenth century and becomes frequent 
in the fourteenth. Another progressive tendency is toward 
naturalism in costumes, proportions, attitudes, and features. 
At the same time there is an evident striving after beauty, 
and this leads to flowing draperies, to sinuous curves which 
supplant the somewhat rigid postures of the earlier figures, 
and to smiling, sometimes almost coquettish expressions 
instead of grave immobility (see the Vierge doree of Amiens). 



These tenden- 
cies do not 
manifest them- 
selves in ex- 
actly the same 
way at all times 
and places, for 
the sculptors 
were affected 
by the earlier 
local schools, 
by remains of 
ancient Roman 
sculpture (this 
is noticeable in 
the northern 
transept at 
Rheims), or by 
with foreign 
works of art ; 
moreover, indi- 
vidual genius 
must always be 
taken into ac- 
count; but the 
general prog- 
ress of sculp- 
ture along the 
lines indicated 
is unmistak- 

The Four- 
teenth Century. 
— In the four- 
teenth century 
the popular 
enthusiasm for 

Figure 114. — Southern Side Door, Amiens (the Vierge 
dorSe on the middle support). 

cathedral building was past. Although 


some great churches were built or completed after 1300, 
conditions were different. More and more the task of 
the sculptors came to be rather to carry out the wishes of 
royal or wealthy patrons than to beautify houses of public 
worship. Private chapels, elaborate tombs, and princely 
palaces became the chief scenes of their labors. The sculp- 
tors were no longer unknown workmen, but were summoned 
individually by princes and potentates to decorate their 
buildings or their tombs. ^ Often artists were attached as valets 
to the personal service of their patrons. Thus they were per- 
sons of some consequence at various courts, though their posi- 
tions were generally insecure and their payment uncertain. 

Much of the sculpture of the fourteenth century is very 
delicate and charming ; there is abundance of fine detail and 
no lack of technical skill. On altar screens and in other 
interior reliefs there is much anecdotical sculpture, and 
naturalism, both in reliefs and in statues, increases. Por- 
traiture, which had appeared in some tombs of the thirteenth 
century, becomes more and more important, for the great 
ones of the age wished their likenesses to be seen not only 
on their tombs, but also in their private chapels and in the 

' Many sculptors of the fourteenth century are now known by name, but 
it is often difficult to connect any extant work with them or to estimate 
their qualities. It may be worth while to mention a few sculptors who 
seem to have been important. Pierre de Chelles appears to have been the 
sculptor of the reliefs in some of the chapels of Notre Dame at Paris and 
also of the sculptures of the northern transept (1313-1320). His father, 
the sculptor and architect Jean de Chelles, artist of the southern transept 
portal of Notre Dame, died about 1270. Jean d'Arras carved the tomb of 
Philip III at St. Denis. Jean Ravy began the reliefs about the choir and 
the altar screen of Notre Dame about 1340. He died probably about 1345. 
The reliefs were finished about 1531 by his nephew Jean le Bouteiler. Pepin 
de Huy came to Paris early in the fourteenth century. His pupil, Jean de 
Li^ge, was one of those who were employed by Charles V. A pupil of Jean 
de Li&ge, Robert Loisel, was, with Thomas Priv6, the artist of the tomb 
of Duguesclin at St. Denis. Robert de Launoy and Guillaume de Nouriche 
made the statues of apostles for the Pilgrims of St. James at Paris. Ray- 
mond du Temple, the architect of the Louvre under Charles V, was also a 
sculptor. To the time of Charles V belong also Jean de Launoy, Jean de 
St. Romain, Jacques Collet (also called Jacques de Chartres), and the 
brothers Andre and Gui de Dammartin. Andre Beauneveu, from Flanders, 
was the sculptor of the tombs of Philip VI, John the Good, and Charles V 
at St. Denis. He was also employed by the Duke de Berry and others, as 
was his pupil, Jean de Rupy. Jean de Marville and Claus Sluter are men- 
tioned below. Pierre Beauneveu and Hennequin Prindale worked under 
Claus Sluter at Dijon. Prindale went to Savoy in 1418. 



interior, as well as on the outside, of their palaces. The 
death mask, a painfully realistic form of portraiture, begins 
to appear toward the end of the century. In religious sculp- 
ture there is a constantly increasing tendency to represent 
sad and painful episodes and to emphasize the thought of 
death. Scenes of the Passion, which had been rare in the 
thirteenth century, become relatively common in the four- 
teenth. Besides the reli- 
gious sculptures connected 
with buildings, many fig- 
ures of the Virgin were 
carved, some of large size, 
to be set up in churches, 
others so small that they 
could be carried about by 
pious travellers. Many of 
these are "\^irgins of sor- 
row, but others are purely 
maternal. The quality of 
their execution varies from 
great excellence to utter 

Sculpture at Dijon. — 
Toward the end of the 
century, Dijon, the resi- 
dence of the Dukes of 
Burgundy, became an im- 
portant centre of art. 

Jean de Marville, a sculptor of Flemish origin, 
called by Duke Philip the Bold to be his "imagier" 
and valet de chambre. In 1383 he began the tomb of 
the Duke, and in 1387-1388 he was working on the sculp- 
tures of the portal of the chapel of Champmol. He died 
in 1389 and his work was continued by Claus Sluter, ap- 
parently of Dutch origin, who had come to Dijon in 1384. 
His most famous work is the Puits de Moise (Well of Moses) 
in the monastery (now a hospital for the insane) of Champ- 
mol, just outside of Dijon (Fig. 115). This was originally 

Figure 115. — The Puits de Moise, 
Dijon (from the cast in the Trocadero, 




the pedestal of a Calvary, of which nothing but the upper 
part of the figure of Christ remains. He is represented as a 
strong man, worn out with sufl'ering, not the bleeding, tor- 
tured Christ so frequently seen in the fifteenth century, but 
still less the Christ in majesty, which was a familiar figure 
in the thirteenth century. The statues of Moses, Jeremiah, 
Zachariah, David, and Isaiah, grouped about the pedestal, 
are the masterpieces of Claus Sluter. Their powerful forms, 

draped in ample, 
heavy garments, and 
their strong, expres- 
si^e faces are de- 
servedly admired. 
They must have been 
still more impressive 
when they glowed 
with their original 
colors. The fine 
statues of the portal 
at Champmol are 
also in part the work 
of Claus Sluter. 
The tomb of Philip 
the Bold was begun 
by Jean de Mar- 
ville, continued by 
Claus Sluter, and finished in 1412 by the latter's nephew, Claus 
de Werve, who did most of the sculpture. The recumbent 
statue of the Duke on the sarcophagus is an admirable work, 
and the small figures of mourners standing in Gothic niches 
in the sides of the sarcophagus are truly remarkable for their 
variety and truth to life; all express grief, but there is no 
repetition in attitudes or faces. Such figures of mourners 
are frequently seen in the fifteenth century (Fig. 116). The 
tomb of John the Fearless and his wife Margaret of Bavaria, 
begun by Juan de la Huerta and finished in 1469 by Antoine 
le Moiturier is little more than a copy of the work of Claus 
Sluter and Claus de Werve. 



^r-vF ' 






FiGUEE 116. — Mourners on the Tomb of 
John the Fearless, Dijon (from casts in the 
Trocad&o, Paris). 


" Burgundian" Influence in the Fifteenth Century. — The 
influence of the Burgundian school of Dijon was far-reach- 
ing in the fifteenth century. One of the sculptors whose 
works are clearly in the Burgundian style is Jacques Morel, 
who is first mentioned at Lyons in 1418 and who died in 
1459 at Angers. His attested 'works are chiefly tombs with 
recumbent statues. The Burgundian style is seen also in 
many Madonnas, Depositions, and other works, even to the 
end of the fifteenth century. One of the finest of the Deposi- 
tions, realistic and full of emotion. Is that in the hospital of 
Tonnerre, by Jean Michiel and Georges de la Sonnecte, 
which was finished in 1452. Figures of the Virgin as a bitterly 
mourning mother, holding on her knees the body of her cru- 
cified Son (the "pieta"), and other scenes of grief and woe 
are common in the fifteenth century. They are represented 
with great realism and with all the intensity of emotion which 
the sculptors are able to express. Such realism is a prevail- 
ing characteristic of French sculpture of the fifteenth century. 


Early Ivories. — In Germany, as elsewhere, the revival of 
art under Charlemagne was confined almost exclusively to 
the lesser arts, such as goldsmith's work, ivory carvings, 
and miniatures. The Rhenish ivories of the ninth, tenth, 
and ele^'enth centuries are strongly influenced by the ancient 
art of Italy, and show some skill in execution. The Saxon 
ivories are more independent, but, as a rule, somewhat rudely 
carved. I^'ory carving fell off in the twelfth century, and 
when it revived in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, 
it was merely a part of the sculpture of the time, not an 
independent art. 

Bronzes of the Eleventh Century. — The art of bronze cast- 
ing had probably never been entirely lost, but had survived 
in small works in the monasteries. The first bronze sculptiu-es 
(the doors of the cathedrals at Hildesheim and Augsburg) are 
\'irtually nothing but magnified goldsmith's work. It was 
under Bishop Bernward (who died in 1023) that the bronze 
doors (1015) and the so-called Christus-Saule (1022) were 
cast. Whether the bishop was himself the artist, or not, is 
uncertain. The figures on the doors are in high relief and 
far apart. The attitudes, sometimes rather grotesque, are 
llvel\' and show that the artist intended to make them very 
natural. The "Christus-Saule" is a column of bronze, mth 
spiral reliefs in imitation of those of the column of Trajan in 
Rome. The short, stiff figures are in middle relief ; they are 
crowded and lack expression ; the technique is poor. The 
reliefs of the door of S. Zeno, in Verona (see page 177), 
resemble those of Hildesheim, but are richer and more form- 



less in composition, and exhibit less naive grandeur of expres- 
sion and motion. The figures on the cathedral door at 
Augsburg are in relatively low relief ; they are lively and not 
without charm. Those at St. Emmerau, in Ratisbon, on the 
contrary, are stiff and conventional. Their probable date is 
between 1049 and 1064. Similar qualities are noticed in 
some colossal wooden crucifixes in Ratisbon, Wiirzburg, 
Bamberg, and elsewhere. This stiffness is here not due to 
Byzantine influence, but to the inability of the primitive 

Early Sculpture in Northern Germany. — In northern 
Germany the rudeness of the earliest work was overcome 
through the study of small works of Byzantine origin. The 
Byzantine influence, which tended towards a combination of 
good workmanship with stiffness and conventionality, is 
visible for about a century, beginning not far from 1075. 
The most and best monuments of this time are Saxon, and 
among these the grave monuments are most niunerous. The 
bronze effigy of King Rudolf of Swabia (who died in 1080), 
in the cathedral at Merseburg, is admirably executed, but is 
undeniably stiff. The famous bronze lion of Brunswick 
(1166), while not perfectly natural, is nevertheless impressive 
and vigorous. The stucco reliefs at Gernrode, of the second 
quarter of the twelfth century, representing saints and sym- 
bolic animals framed in scrollwork, exhibit Byzantine influ- 
ence very clearly. The bronze doors at Gnesen and Novgorod 
are Saxon works of this period, but have little merit. In 
Westphalia the sculpture of this time is almost all of stone ; 
it is rude and stiff, showing little originality or invention, 
though the tympana of several small churches and the colos- 
sal relief at Extersteinen, near Horn, which represents the 
descent from the cross, are not without the merit of liveliness 
and clearness. Nor does the sculpture of the Rhine country 
or of Alsace or Lorraine offer much that is of interest. Here 
and there traces of Burgundian influence are seen, but there 
is no indication of the rise of an original, native art. 

Early Sculpture in Southern Germany. — In southern Ger- 
many the twelfth century shows little or no progress. In 


Bavaria there are some decorative sculptures, which exhibit 
Uttleorno Byzantine or Early Christian influence, and similar 
works are seen in Franconia, Alsace, and Switzerland. Some 
panels in the cathedral at Basel, representing scenes from 
the legends of St. Mncent and St. Lawrence, which are attrib- 
uted to the twelfth century, have the merit of lively action ; 
they seem to derive their technical qualities from ancient 
sarcophagi. Austria and Bohemia produced little real sculp- 
ture, and their ornamental work is generally rude and poor. 

The Thirteenth Century. — In the thirteenth century vari- 
ous local schools arise. Ancient art still exerts no little influ- 
ence, but direct study of nature is more important. Sculp- 
ture is practised chiefly in churches, for the decoration of 
choir screens, altars, chancels, and lecterns, and also in the 
tympana and on the jambs of the portals, where it is usually 
less rich than in France. Sculptiu-e not connected with archi- 
tecture is nearly all portraiture, consisting of reliefs on tombs 
and of statues. The usual material is sandstone. 

Saxon Sculpture of the Thirteenth Century. — Saxony is the 
chief centre of this first development of German sculpture, 
which is connected with Romanesque architecture and closes 
about 1275. Even before the end of the twelfth century 
certain baptismal fonts in Saxony and the neighboring West- 
phalia show a desire on the part of the sculptors to give life 
and expression to their figiu'es, a residt which they try to gain 
by means of violently agitated draperies. Such draperies 
are characteristic of German sculpture long after the adoption 
of more natural methods in France. At Halberstadt, in the 
Liebfrauenkirche, is a choir screen adorned with stucco reliefs 
of Christ, the "N'irgin, and the twelve apostles. The draperies 
and attitudes recall the school of Toulouse, probably because 
similar originals (ivories or miniatiu-es) inspired the artists. 
These reliefs are ascribed to the beginning of the thirteenth 
century. Even earlier is a stucco relief from Groningen (now 
in Berlin), of Christ as Judge, surrounded by ten apostles. 
The group of the virgin and Child with the apostles, on the 
choir screen at Hikiesheim, belongs to the same time as the 
reliefs at Halberstadt, and, like those, exhibits the influence 


of Byzantine ivories or miniatures. A few large crucifixions 
carved in wood deserve mention. That in the cathedral of 
Halberstadt, of the first third of the thirteenth century, 
exhibits nobility and beauty in its chief figures, though the 
lesser figures are poor and stiff. The somewhat later cruci- 
fixion at Wechselburg (about 12150) is finer, — almost com- 
parable to the "Goldene Pforte" of Freiberg. 

In richness of ornamentation, clearness of composition,' 
delicacy of work- 
manship, variety and 
significance of its 
plastic decoration, 
and feeling for 
beauty, the " Gol- 
dene Pforte" (golden 
door) of the cathe- 
dral of Freiberg (Fig. 
117) is the finest 
work of this period 
in northern Ger- 
many, though in 
animation, in the 
elaboration of the 
hands and feet, and 
in correctness of pro- 
portions it is inferior 
to the somewhat 
later work at Bam- 
berg, Naumburg, and even 
the "Goldene Pforte" 

FiGUiiE 117. — Tympanum ol the " Goldene 
Pforto," Froiborg. (Photo. Dr. F.Stoedtner, 
Berlin NW.) 

Magdeburg. The artist of 
was evidently acquainted with 
the contemporary (about 1225) work of France, though no 
direct dependence upon any particular French work has been 
traced. Other works in Saxony of the same early period and 
of similar style are seen at Merseburg, Nossen, and Halle. 
The monument of Henry the Lion and his wife, at Brunswick, 
is a fine example of portrait sculpture. 

Westphalian Sculpture. — In Westphalia the portals of the 
cathedrals at Miinster and Paderborn are adorned with sculp- 



tures dating from about the middle of the thirteenth century. 
The figures are stiff, but the attitudes and the much agitated 
draperies show that the sculptors desired to represent lively 
action. The heads are dignified and expressive. Here, as 
elsewhere in Germany, the desire to express meaning outruns 
the artist's technical and aesthetic power. At Magdeburg 
there is much excellent sculpture within the cathedral, and 
also on the exterior at the northern portal (Paradiespforte). 
Here the architecture is completely Gothic, therefore the date 
must be near the end of the century. 

FiGUHE 118. — Tympanum from the " Georgenchor, " Bamberg. 

Bamberg. — The sculptures of the cathedral at Bamberg 
were probably executed between 12.30 and 1245. The earlier 
parts are somewhat archaic and betray their connection with 
the art of the twelfth century which was under Byzantine 
influence. The later parts are freer in style, with flowing 
drapery, and show a feeling for beauty like that exhibited in 
the latest Saxon works. In the choir of St. George the reliefs 
are high, the drapery stiff, the abdomens and thighs round and 
prominent; at the same time the Jewish types are well 


rendered, and in general there is much naturahsm (Fig. 118). 
Some of the other rehefs exhibit the same characteristics. 
The later sculptures, with their calm dignity and graceful 
draperies, appear to derive their inspiration from the Saxon 
school. Among these are the sculptures of the northern 
portal and the equestrian statue (sometimes called Conrad 
III) in the interior of the cathedral. 

Naumburg. Influence of the Saxon School. — The decoration 
of the high choir at Naumburg, in Saxony, belongs to the end 
of this period (about 1270). The sculptor evidently had a 
real sense of beauty and aimed at dramatic effect. There is 
in the reliefs a trait of vigorous naturalism, and the statues 
represent real individuals, though they are not actually por- 
traits, since they were made long after the death of the per- 
sons whose names they bear. Even in the crucifixion group of 
the choir screen similar naturalistic and portraitlike traits ap- 
pear, combined with a feeling for beauty, with good composi- 
tion, excellent drapery, and dramatic effect. Similar quali- 
ties are seen in the somewhat less admirable statues in the 
cathedral at Meissen. The influence of the Saxon school was 
widespread, extending into Silesia and even to Transylvania. 

Strassburg, Freiburg, Other Parts of Germany. — In the 
cathedral of Strassburg only the sculptures of the transept, 
both within and on the exterior, are of the Romanesque 
period (their probable date is between 1230 and 1250), and 
even these are in great measure dependent upon French art. 
The fine figures of the Church and the Synagogue (Fig. 119), 
at the portal, are already Gothic. Many of the early figures 
were destroyed in the French Revolution. At Freiburg, in the 
Breisgau, some figures belong to this period, but most of the 
sculpture is later. The sculpture of Franconia, Bavaria, the 
regions of the lower and middle Rhine, and the lands along 
the Baltic is not abundant in this period, nor is it especially 

Gothic Sculpture in Germany. — The period from about 
1275 to 1450 — the last period of mediaeval art — was char- 
acterized by the complete dominance of Gothic architecture 
over sculpture. Gothic architecture was adopted in an 



advanced stage from France, not developed in Germany, 
and evidently French sculpture exerted great influence upon 

the Germans. This is 

natural, especially as the 
sculptures were carved 
by the building masons. 
In some slight measure 
the bent and twisted 
postures which occur in 
this period may be due 
to the influence of the 
architecture. In this 
period less direct study 
of nature is exhibited in 
the treatment of human 
forms than in the pre- 
ceding time, less elab- 
oration of drapery, and 
less truth in postures. 
In the thirteenth cen- 
tury the draperies worn 
were thin and allowed 
the form to show its 
outlines ; in the Gothic 
period fashion demanded 
thick, lined clothing, 
which fell in clumsy 
folds and hid the forms 
of the body. The love 
of deep shadows also led 
the sculptors to carve 
deep and clumsy folds. 
In general, the German 
sculptors show much, even too much, sentiment. With 
the general development of city life a greater variety of 
tasks was offered to the sculptors, and therefore greater 
variety in composition makes its appearance. Portrait- 
ure develops and becomes especially good toward the end 

FiGUBE 119. — The Synagogue, Strass- 
burg Cathedral. (Photo. Dr. F. Stoedtner, 
Berlin NW.) 


of the period. It will be possible to mention only a few of the 
more important monuments of this time and to give a gen- 
eral survey of sculpture in the different parts of Germany. 

Freiburg. — The sculpture of the minster at Freiburg in 
the Breisgau is chiefly in the open porch at the front. It was 
begun about 1275, and is therefore almost contemporary 
with the great Romanesque sculptures of Bamberg and 
Naumburg. It 
presents the 
whole Christian 
doctrine of salva- 
tion as conceived 
by mediaeval 
theology, and is 
of great icono- 
graphic interest. 
In style it retains 
a trace of Roman- 
esque awkward- 
ness, combined 
with naturalistic 
traits. The 
more completely 
Gothic sculpture 
within the min- 
ster and at the 
side portals is 
somewhat later, and the statues at the sides of the main 
portal exhibit the artificial style of the fourteenth century. 

Strasshurg. — : At Strassburg the three great western portals 
were begun about 1290 and finished about 1330. French 
influence is plainly seen in the arrangement and placing, as 
well as in the character and even the execution of the figures. 
The reliefs are very much restored, so that only the general 
effect, not the details, can now be regarded as due to the orig- 
inal sculptors, but the free-standing figures at the sides of the 
doorways have suffered little from restoration. They are 
remarkable for their affected attitudes and expressions, in 

Figure 120. — Tempter and Tempted ; Foolish 
Virgins. Strassburg Cathedral. (Photo. Dr. F. 
Stoedtner, Berlin NW.) 


spite of which (or even because of which) they are much 
admired (Fig. 120). The sculpture of this cathedral, of 
different dates, from the early part of the thirteenth to almost 
the end of the fifteenth century, is exceptionally rich, and is 
comparable to that of the great French cathedrals from which 
its makers derived their inspiration. 

The Middle and Lower Rhine. — In the regions of the middle 
and lower Rhine sculpture is more plentiful in the second half 
of the fourteenth century than before, and here, as at Strass- 
burg, French influence is strong. In the cathedral of Cologne 
the statues of Christ, the Virgin, and the twelve apostles, on 
the piers of the choir (1.349-1361), are affected in attitude and 
expression and too slender in proportions, but are careful 
work. The wooden JNIadonna in the south side of the choir 
is rather exceptionally good. The statues of apostles and the 
reliefs representing scenes from the lives of Sts. Peter and 
Paul, which adorn the portal under the southern tower, are 
good examples of the somewhat affected work of the early 
part of the fifteenth century. At AVetzlar also are interesting 
works of this period. The sculptured decoration of the 
cathedral of Mainz consists of pretty, affected figures of no 
great importance. In the cathedral at Frankfort the tomb 
of Ritter von Holzhausen and his wife (died 1371) is an 
excellent piece of naturalistic work, as is also the tomb of 
Rudolf of Hapsbiu-g in the cathedral of Speyer. In fact, in 
this region, and in Germany generally, tombs with effigies of 
the deceased are numerous, and among them are many of 
striking excellence. 

Southern Germany — Bavaria, Austria, Bohemia. — There is 
comparatiA'ely little sculpture of this period in Bavaria, 
Austria, or Bohemia, and no important local schools develop 
in those regions. At Nuremberg, in Franconia, the sculp- 
tures of the churches of St. Lawrence and St. Sebaldus (about 
13.30-1365) and of the Frauenkirche (1355-1361) are inter- 
esting works (Fig. 121), well executed and exhibiting some- 
thing of the popular, intimate realism which predominates 
in the wooden altarpieces of the latter part of the fifteenth 
century. The figures of the " Beautiful Fountain " at Xurem- 


berg (1385-1396), though much restored, are still impressive, 
in spite of some affectation in pose and expression. 

Northern Germany. Engraved Brasses. — Sculpture in 
northern Germany, though not entirely neglected in this 
period, is much less important than before. The chief 
centres are, perhaps, Magdeburg, Brunswick, and Halber- 
stadt. The sculpture of Hanover and Silesia is unimportant. 
In the newly Germanized provinces of Mecklenburg, Branden- 
burg, and Prussia there is little sculpture except wood-carvings 

Figure 121. — Tympanum of the Frauenkirche, Nuremberg (from a cast). 

and engraved brasses. These last are plates of brass which 
served as coverings for tombs, usually in the floors of churches. 
On them the efBgy of the deceased is engraved. Such brasses 
seem to have originated in the Netherlands, but they were 
popular in northern Germany, in France, and in England. 
Though many of them were made in the Netherlands and 
exported, others were made in the countries where they were 
used. In northern Germany there are also a few, though 
very few, bronze slabs with reliefs instead of engraved figures. 
In general, however, the sculpture of the provinces mentioned 
is almost negligible. 


In this period, especially in the first half of the fifteenth 
century, German sculpture begins to show the popular, 
familiar realism which is the distinguishing quality of the 
Renaissance in Germany, but its spirit is still mediaeval 
and it is still in great measure dominated by Gothic 


English Sculpture before the Norman Conqxiest. — Time and 
religious intolerance have dealt more hardly with works of 
sculpture in England than on the continent, and for that 
reason English mediaeval sculpture now seems to be of rela- 
tively slight importance. Such was, however, apparently 
not the case during a part, at least, of the Middle Ages. 

Sculpture before the Norman conquest is almost entirely 
confined to crosses decorated with scrollwork, and sometimes 
with figures,^ slabs on which scrolls and curious monsters 
are carved in very flat relief in a style apparently of Irish and 
Scandinavian origin, a few crucifixes, ivory carvings similar 
to those executed in France and Germany under Charle- 
magne, and, especially in southern and western England, a 
small number of stone reliefs the style of which seems to be 
derived from paintings, ivories, and goldsmith's work. It is 
not even certain that all of these works usually ascribed to 
the Saxons really antedate the Norman conquest. At any 
rate the continuous development of sculpture in England 
hardly begins before that event. 

Sculpture in Connection with Norman Architecture. — The 
immediate effect of the conquest was rather to stop than to 
aid the progress of the more refined sculpture of southern 
England, with which the hardy Normans had little sympathy. 
The Romanesque churches of Normandy were almost devoid 
of sculpture, unless decorative patterns may be called by 

' The finest crosses, those at Ruthwell and Bewcastle, with their figured 
decoration, which have been cited as proofs of the existence in northern 
England in the seventh century of a school of sculpture strongly influenced 
by Byzantine art, are probably works of the twelfth century. See A. S. 
Cook, The Date of the Ruthwell and Bewcastle Crosses, New Haven, 1913. 




that name, and the coming of the Normans brought no direct 
encouragement to EngUsh sculptors. Nevertheless, in the 
twelfth century sculpture progressed in England, not on 

Figure 122. — Portal of Rochester Cathedral. (Photo. Mansell.) 

account of the Norman conquest, but because the religious 
life of England was closely connected with that of the con- 
tinent. Works like the spandrel carvings of Malmesbury 
Abbey, the tympanum of Rochester cathedral (Fig. 122), and 


that of the Prior's Doorway of Ely cathedral show clearly 
the influence of the school of Toulouse, whether it reached 
England directly or by the way of Spain, where the church 
of Santiago de Compostela, to which pilgrims from all direc- 
tions resorted in great numbers, was an important outpost 
of the art which had its centre at Toulouse, though its origin 
may perhaps be sought in the great Benedictine monastery of 
Cluny. In northeastern England, at York, Lincoln, and 
Durham, a combination of the influence of Toulouse with the 
somewhat harsh and crude earlier work in Scandinavian 
style produced toward the end of the twelfth century some 
works in which vigor and delicacy are happily blended ; but 
this northern school seems to have come to an end about 
1200. In middle England the Scandinavian or "Viking" 
style persisted throughout the twelfth century. 

Gothic Sculpture in England — Its Periods — Heads — 
Effigies. — In England, as in France, the great development of 
sculpture took place in connection with that of Gothic archi- 
tecture, though neither architecture nor sculpture developed 
exactly as in France. Gothic sculpture in England may be di- 
vided into three periods, the first about 1200-1280, the second 
about 1280-1.360, the third about 1360-1530. In the first 
period sculpture was closely connected with architecture and 
developed with it, taking the form of heads in corbels, string- 
stops, bosses, gargoyles, and the like, of reliefs in spandrels and 
tympana, and of statues in niches on the fronts of churches. 
At the same time, however, many effigies were carved for 
tombs. These effigies were chiefly of the hard, dun-colored 
limestone called Purbeck marble, and were carved at the 
quarries or in shops at London. They undoubtedly affected 
the style of the early statues on the fronts of churches. 

The chief interest of the carvers of heads in corbels, string- 
stops, and the like lay in facial expression, and by the end of 
the twelfth century many such heads are already admirably 
expressive. At Wells and Salisbury the progress of such 
head sculpture can be traced until the middle of the thirteenth 
century, when it had attained great excellence of technique 
and delicacy of sentiment. The art of head stops was espe- 


cially at home in southern England, closely connected with 
Salisbury and Westminster, but spread northwards in the 
thirteenth century. Head sculpture was employed also in 
capitals, supplanting the figure scenes of the Romanesque 
capitals, though at Wells many capitals with more or less 
comic figure scenes were carved about 1200. Dragons and 
devils were also favorite subjects, especially for gargoyles. 
When figures were carved on the voussoirs of arches, they 
were seldom placed under canopies, as in France, but were, 
as at Lichfield, Westminster, and Salisbury, framed in vine 
scrolls after the Romanesque manner. 

Larger Relief Sculpture of the First Period. — The larger 
relief sculpture of this period is seen chiefly in the spandrels 
of arches, in detached niches, and in tympana. In the span- 
drels a consistent treatment of a connected theme is usual, 
which soon develops great skill and taste in execution and 
composition. Examples of such work are seen at Wells, 
Westminster, and Salisbury. Angels are favorite figures in 
spandrels. They are found at Worcester (about 1240), at 
Lincoln in the choir aisle and the eastern transept (about 
1240), and at Westminster (about 1250), where they are re- 
markable for their grace, expression, beauty, and adaptation 
to the space to be filled. Li the Angel Choir at Lincoln 
(about 1260-1270) development of style is distinctly trace- 
able from the earlier to the later angels, both in technique 
and in expression of sentiment. Differences between local 
styles are especially noticeable in the treatment of draperies. 
Li recessed niches (trefoils, quatrefoils, and the like) detached 
figures or scenes are placed in deep shadow. The figures 
are in high relief, sometimes almost free from the background 
and thus approaching the quality of statues. The subjects 
of a series of such reliefs are sometimes, as at Wells, con- 
nected, but such connection is not always apparent. The 
tympana are far less important than in France. Often there 
is merely, as at Wells, a figure or a group set in a quatrefoil. 
The Judgment Porch at Lincoln (about 1270) is an exception. 
The composition in tympana seems to be in general derived 
from the paintings in manuscripts. 


Statues of the First Period. — The statues of Peterborough 
cathedral (about 1200) seem to reflect in stone the style of 
the figures of wood or metal which had been made for the 
interiors of churches, though few examples of such works 
now remain for comparison. The Peterborough figures have 
heavy proportions, and the same peculiarity is seen in later 
works in neighboring places. 

Figure 123. — Part of Facade of Exeter Cathedral. (Photo. Mansell.) 

At Wells the front of the cathedral was adorned with 180 
large statues, 127 of which now remain. They stand in 
separate niches arranged in rows across the front, and are 
not, as in French Gothic churches, grouped about deeply 
recessed portals. Perhaps the Romanesque tradition of 
Poitou, Angouleme, and northern Spain may have influenced 
the design of this facade. Somewhat similar arrangement is 
seen at Exeter (Fig. 12.3) and Lincoln, and English portals 


are never so rich as those of the great French churches. The 
statues at Wells which belong to this period were carved 
about 1220-1242 and exhibit progress in attitudes, expression, 
and draperies. They do not attain the perfection of the best 
contemporary French work, but exhibit greater tenderness of 
feeling. The draperies have a clinging softness which dis- 
tinguishes them from the work of other places. Apparently 
the sculptors at Wells were influenced by the Purbeck marble 
workers, somewhat as those at Peterborough were influenced 
by the workers of wood. 

At Lincoln, about 1250, and elsewhere in northeastern 
England, the flgures are heavy and rather squat. Apparently 
this is a continuation of the style of Peterborough ; but soon 
a new influence, probably from London, makes itself felt, 
and the works of the latter part of the thirteenth century 
are not without grace combined with a certain tense and 
severe dignity. 

Effigies of the First Period. — The so-called Purbeck marble 
was much used for pillars, capitals, fonts, and the like, and 
was a favorite material for coffins and memorial slabs. On 
these were carved figures in relief, which gradually developed 
into complete effigies. Such work was often finished at the 
quarry, but the stone was also often taken to London and 
carved there. At first the figures, in standing posture, were 
in flat relief, and only the part of the stone immediately 
about the flgure was cut away, so that the figure appears as if 
set in a frame. As the relief became higher this framed or 
sunken effect disappeared (about 122.5-1245), and then a 
florid decoration with crockets and other architectural adorn- 
ments was added. The figure appears as if standing in a 
niche, with an arch overhead and columns at the sides. 
Since the figures were placed in a horizontal position, the 
idea that the person was lying down was almost unavoidable, 
and before the middle of the thirteenth century it became 
customary to represent a pillow under the head, though at 
first the standing posture was retained, in spite of the incon- 
sistency involved. Soon, however, an easier recumbent 
posture was adopted, often with crossed legs, which does not 


indicate that the deceased was a crusader. The development 
of knightly effigies is clearly seen in a series of tombs in the 
Temple church in London. Somewhat different types were 
naturally created for ecclesiastics and ladies, but in a general 
way all types passed through a parallel development.^ At 
first the work done at the quarries and that done in the Lon- 
don shops was identical, but before 1270 some differences in 
detail appear. After 1270 the fine, sharp folds and delicate 
carving which the use of the close-grained and relatively 
hard Purbeck marble had encouraged, gives way to broader 
surfaces and less elaborate technique. This was probably 
due in part to the desire to gi^'e greater opportunity for 
painting, and in part to the necessity of meeting the com- 
petition of effigies carved from coarser varieties of stone. 
Such freestone effigies imitated the effects of Purbeck marble, 
but were more easily wrought and therefore less expensive. 
By the use of hard stucco (gesso) and color for details and 
ornaments, they were made quite as effective as the Purbeck 
effigies. Bristol was a centre for the manufacture and dis- 
tribution of freestone effigies, but other places near which 
suitable stone existed had their local sculptors. 

The Second Period of Gothic Sculpture. — In the second 
period (about 1280-1360), various local schools of statuary 
may be distinguished. In the North, the angels of Durham 
cathedral (about 1280) have the broad draperies and the 
emotional qualities of the Lincoln Angel Choir, and similar 
characteristics appear in some slightly later statues at York. 
These statues have the swaying pose seen in German figures, 
narrow shoulders, strong, square chins, and luxuriant curls. 
Possibly the sculptors may have been influenced by imported 
figures of the Madonna. In the East, the chief centre of 
production was at Ancaster. The style is derived from the 
statues of the porch at Lincoln. The figures are somewhat 
heavy and, on the whole, lacking in delicacy. The statue 
work of southern England was much affected by the London 
shop work, though another centre was at Exeter. During 

' The types, materials, and local schools are discussed in detail by Prior 
and Gardner, Medieval Figure Sculpture in England, pp. 545-721. 


this period a fusion of style took place between the statues 
carved in shops and those carved in connection with architec- 
ture. The imagers adopted in great measure the style of the 
architectural sculptors, but as a result the making of statues 
began by the middle of the fourteenth century to be separated 
from architecture and to become more exclusively shop 
work. The style of statues grew less dignij&ed, with a ten- 
dency toward prettiness and pettiness. This in turn influ- 
enced architectural relief sculpture, which became lively 
rather than serious. These qualities are seen in the 
"weepers" or "mourners" which adorn the sides of sar- 
cophagi. Small figures of alabaster from Nottingham and 
small stone figures made in southern England show much deli- 
cacy of sentiment. Some excellent ivories were also carved 
in this period. 

Effigies of the Second Period. — Toward the end of the 
thirteenth and in the early part of the fourteenth century 
many tomb effigies were carved at Exeter and Bristol in the 
Southwest, at York in the North, at Ancaster in the East, 
and at several places in middle England. Every^vhere the 
infiuence of the London style of Purbeck marble effigies was 
strong at first, but a broad, free style, more suited to coarser 
stone, soon developed. In London the first style had been 
that of Purbeck marble, the second (after 1270) was that of 
freestone and wood, the third that of alabaster (and other 
soft, fine-grained stones, such as cluncli), which supplanted 
the freestone style after 1.350. The earliest alabaster 
effigies look like London work. 

Bosses. — The architectural relief sculpture began to be 
chiefly confined to bosses in the elaborate vaulting of the 
period and to other small surfaces. It exhibits great variety 
of expression and great technical dexterity, but little dignity. 
Many figures are crowded into small spaces, and there are 
many anecdotal reliefs. 

The Third Period of Gothic Sculpture. — In the third period 
(about 1360-1530), local differences are less. Statues were 
now made in shops and placed in architectural settings, not 
really made as part of architecture. They exhibit less 


variety and less expression, in spite of their exaggerated ges- 
tures. Such, at least, is the rule, though exceptions occur. 
Examples of the rule are the " Kings " over the doorway of the 
western front of Lincoln cathedral (about 1380) or the proph- 
ets in the upper row at Exeter (about 1380). Many 
statues of this period show good technique, but others are 
rudely or carelessly executed. 

Effigies of the Third Period — Brasses. — Tomb effigies of 
this period are numerous (Fig. 124). Five are of bronze. 

Figure 124. 

-Tomb of Cardinal Langham, Westminster Abbey. (Photo. 

about twenty of wood, the rest of freestone or alabaster, the 
former being influenced by the alabaster technique. Changes 
of costume show the different dates, but in other respects the 
effigies throughout the entire period exhibit a marked same- 
ness. The alabaster craft, with its facile delicacy, is the 
dominant influence. After 1500 some slight effect of Flemish 
realism appears, but there is no hint of any effect of the 
Italian Renaissance. Engraved brasses are more common in 
England than on the continent, and many of them are Eng- 



lisli work. They have, however, Httle affinity with sculpture, 
except in so far as they repeat the costumes and attitudes of 
the carved effigies. In style they resemble somewhat the 
figures in stained-glass windows. 

Statues in Interior Decoration. — Most of the statues of the 
elaborate choir screens and other interior adornments of 

churches have disap- 
peared, but the existing 
remains indicate that 
the same conditions pre- 
vailed as in architectural 
sculpture. London was 
no doubt the great cen- 
tre of production, but 
other centres existed at 
Oxford, Norwich, Not- 
tingham, and York, 
where three generations 
of imagers by the name 
of Drawswerd practised 
their art. The figures 
of the choir screen at 
York (end of the fif- 
teenth century) are pe- 
culiar in their emphasis 
of line, produced by deep 
cutting, and their rigid- 
ity of pose. They look 
as if their style were 
affected by that of the figures in stained-glass windows. The 
chapel of Henry VII in Westminster Abbey (1502-1512) offers 
the greatest extant collection of works of this period (Fig. 125). 
The figures show Flemish influence and exhibit great life 
and freedom, but little or nothing to remind us that the 
Renaissance was fully developed in Italy at that time. 

Architectural Relief Sculpture. — Architectural relief sculp- 
ture no longer covered spandrels and other large surfaces, as 
these were now occupied by the panellings of the Perpendic- 

FiGUHE 125. — Part of the Chapel of 
Henry VII, Westminster Abbey. (Photo. 


ular style, but was chiefly confined to bosses, gargoyles, and 
similar small spaces. Corbel-heads grow rare in the four- 
teenth century, and when they occur they usually have the 
form of devils or monsters for the exterior and angels for the 
interior of churches. The numerous gargoyles of the four- 
teenth and fifteenth centuries have very various forms of 
monsters. Heraldic beasts are frequently represented in 
relief on tombs, over doorways, or on walls. Bosses become 
very elaborate and are often canned with figures or groups of 
figures, in some of which the influence of the alabaster style 
is evident. About 1450 and later angels in reliefs are some- 
times entirely covered with feathers, as if dressed in feathered 
tights. It may be that the feathered wings suggested feathers 
for the whole form, or possibly feathered costumes worn in 
mystery plays may be imitated. Among the finest angel 
sculptures are those which adorn the arches of the wooden 
ceilings of the eastern counties. In the nave at March 
(Norfolk) are more than one hundred angels admirably 
carved in the round. Other wooden figures of this period 
are fairly numerous, and some of them are of great merit. 

Reliefs on Church Furniture. Fonts, Tombs, Retahles, 
Stalls, etc. — The most characteristic reliefs of this period are 
the sculptured pictures on church furniture. These, like 
the contemporary statues, are city shop work. Fonts were 
made in various places, especially at Norwich, in East 
England, where bosses were also a specialty. The fonts are 
usually octagonal, with figured panels, the style of which is, 
especially from 1400 to 1450, essentially pictorial. In the 
second half of the fifteenth century the fonts are very elab- 
orate structures, and in the sixteenth century their magnifi- 
cence increases still further, while the quality of the sculp- 
ture deteriorates. 

The reliefs of tomb chests and monuments were under the 
influence of alabaster work, whether they were actually of 
alabaster or not. On the sides of tombs were generally 
"weepers" or "mourners," usually of stone in the four- 
teenth century, of alabaster in the fifteenth, and the survival 
of this motif is seen as late as the eighteenth century in the 


figures of children mourning at the tomb of their parents. 
Such work originated in London, where the materials used 
were at first bronze and Purbeck marble ; then alabaster was 
introduced, and finally alabaster was copied in harder stone. 
London and Nottingham both worked alabaster in combina- 
tion, much as the Purbeck quarries and the London shops had 
worked together at an earlier date. Alabaster was also 
carried in the block to York, where tombs were carved about 
1400 in northern style. On these the place of the "weepers" 
is taken by angels holding shields, a motif which occurs also 
at other places. On other tomb chests about 1440 to 1470 
the Annunciation is represented. Figures of saints and other 
variations also occur. Monuments under canopies, set 
against walls, are rare in alabaster, but not in stone. Some- 
times they are very elaborate, with figures set in panels and a 
recumbent effigy ; such, for instance, is the Kirkham monu- 
ment at Paignton (Devon), dated about 1500. An important 
part of church furniture was the retable, or reredos. This, 
if not too large, was made entirely in the shop, and if it was 
so large that it had to be built in the church, its statues, and 
even its reliefs, were made in the shop and set up in their 
architectural setting. They are therefore similar in character 
to the other sculpture of the period. Wooden choir stalls, 
chests, misericords, etc., are numerous, and these also seem 
to be, for the most part, at least, shop work. Some of the 
misericords are admirably done, their small reliefs exhibiting 
most delicious humor. 

A labaster Reliefs. — Alabaster, which is found in southern 
Derbyshire and in Staft'ordshire, is an excellent material, 
especially for small sculpture, as it is easily carved, admits of 
sharp cutting, as well as smooth finish, and has an admirable 
surface for coloring. Its use in tomb chests has already been 
mentioned ; but it was most extensively used after the middle 
of the fourteenth century in the form of tablets, ordinarily of 
small size; these were grouped to form triptychs and the 
like, and were exported to all parts of France, to southern 
Germany, and even to Italy. Their style was derived in great 
measure from that of ivory reliefs; it was pictorial and 


anecdotic. The relief was high, often with much under- 
cutting, and color and gilding were freely and effectively 
employed to add further beauty to the work (Fig. 126). 
Triptychs and polyptychs composed of such tablets are now 
found chiefly on the continent, but they must have been 
niunerous in England, where fragmentary specimens still 
exist. Several definite sets of scenes were developed, the 
most usual of 
which are the 
Passion and the 
Virgin sets. The 
earliest tablets 
(1350-1420) were 
complete in them- 
selves, with a bor- 
der of the same 
slab, but later the 
tablets were made 
to be arranged in 
sets and framed in 
wood. The great 
framed retables 
are not earlier than 1450. The dates are determined by 
details of costume and also by tricks of style and manu- 
facture. Although Nottingham was the original home of 
alabaster work, many tablets were, no doubt, carved else- 
where, especially at London. In some of the latest exam- 
ples the work is rude and smnmary. Such inferior tablets 
may have formed the stock of travelling hucksters; they 
are, at any rate, not to be regarded as examples of the real 
art of the last years of the fifteenth century. 

Figure 126. — English Alabaster Relief, 
politan Museum, New York. 




Spain before the Eleventh Century. — Long before the Roman 
conquest Phoenicians and Greeks settled in Spain, and under 
their influence the natives, in some places, practised the art of 
sculpture with some success. Of this the " Lady of Elche," in 
the Louvre, a work probably of the fifth century B.C., is the 
most striking example. Under the Romans, the sculpture 
of Spain differed little, if at all, from that of the other western 
provinces of the Empire. In the fifth century a.d. the Roman 
province of Spain was overrun by Vandals, Alans, and Suevi 
and conquered l)y the Visigoths, who ruled until the conquest 
by the Moors, which took place in the eighth century. Only 
a small part of the peninsula, in the extreme north, remained 
in the hands of the Christians. But almost immediately the 
resistance to tlie floors began to gather strength, and gradu- 
ally they were pressed back, to be at last expelled after the 
fall of Granada in 1492. Roman civilization in Spain was 
essentially the same as in other well-settled provinces of the 
Empire, and the few remains of Early Christian art show 
few, if any, Spanish peculiarities. The Goths brought with 
them no art of sculpture. Moorish art, brilliant as it is in 
some respects, affords no figure sculpture. Its fine orna- 
mental work in stucco may be classed as decorative sculpture, 
but is to be regarded rather as a background of raised patterns 
to make the coloring more effective. Spanish sculpture is 
therefore to be sought only in Christian Spain, and there only 
a few works exist which can be attributed to a time before 
the eleventh century. These are rude carvings, some of 
which seem be to inspired by Byzantine art, while others are 
merely barbaric. 



French Influence in the Eleventh Century. — In the eleventh 
century there was a great influx of French into Spain, and the 
immigrants brought with them the art which spread from 
Cluny through southern France. In many cloisters the 
sculptured capitals show the dominance of the school of 
Toulouse in the eleventh and twelfth centuries throughout 
northern Spain, though the animals and fantastic creatures 
of the earliest capitals at Santo Domingo de Silos (Castile, 
end of the eleventh century) seem to be Mussulman work, 
and several cloisters in Catalonia exhibit a style in which the 
art of Toulouse appears modified by traits of realism, by 
Mussulman decorative traditions, and also, perhaps, by 
Proven9al influence.^ In these Catalan capitals some local 
qualities are discernible, though even here the French 
elements predominate, but elsewhere in Spain the sculptured 
capitals of the cloisters are either purely French or inferior 
imitations of French work. 

Portals. — A type of portal which was frequent from the 
beginning of the eleventh to the end of the twelfth century 
has a bare tympanum, or none at all, columns with simply 
carved capitals, and archivolts covered with stars, rosettes, 
and the like, or occasionally with forms of human beings and 
monsters. Sometimes the archivolts are toothed or multi- 
foiled in Moorish taste. In the "Puerta del Palau" of the 
cathedral at Valencia such archivolts are combined with very 
delicate reliefs. This portal (about 1262) is the work of 
artists from Lerida, where the "Puerta dels Fillols" of the 
cathedral shows a very slightly earlier stage of the same style. 

Santiago de Coinpostela. — The portals of the cathedral of 
Santiago de Compostela, the masterpiece of Romanesque 
art in Spain, exhibit the style of Toulouse. Of the side 

1 Such are the cloisters of San Pere and of the cathedral at Gerona, the 
cloister at Elena, and that at San Cugat del Valles, near Barcelona, all of 
which may be ascribed to the twelfth century. At San Cugat the artist 
signs his name, Arnall Catell, under the figure of a sculptor with mallet and 
chisel. The name is Catalan, not French. At Tarragona the style ex- 
hibited in. the cloister of the cathedral resembles in part that of San Cugat 
and Gerona, but is affected by ancient Roman sculpture, no doubt from the 
ruins of Tarraco, and includes also some Moorish ornament. The latest 
example of this style is the cloister of San Francesch, at Barcelona. 






iS ^ 

portals, which were finished before 1140, only the southern 
one (Puerta de Platerias) remains. This is clearly the work 
of two artists, one more advanced than the other, but both 
belonged to the school of Toulouse, and were probably them- 
selves French- 
men (Fig. 127). 
Some of the re- 
liefs are so 
placed as to 
show that their 
significance was 
not understood.^ 
The original 
western facade 
was replaced in 
the eighteenth 
century by the 
existing baroque 
construction, but 
the "Portico de 
la Gloria" re- 
mains. This is 
a vestibule or 
narthex extend- 
ing across the 
western front of 
the church (Fig. 
128). A great 
double door and 
two smaller doors 
lead into the nave 
and the side 
aisles. The en- 
tire vestibule, 
with its decoration, is clearly the work of one great artist. 
The very elaborate sculptures of the doorway represent the 

1 Some of the sculptures of this portal belonged originally to the northern 


'm _'*- - 





■ y 


^ \ 



' '^-^^H 



• ■■"■ 




■^ - 



. ■ 



m "' 

■ ; 



fi ; 

'i HI 



J —J 


Figure 127. — Santiago de Compostela, South Por- 
tal ; Figures from the Destroyed North Portal. 



evangelists, angels and the elect, the twenty-four elders of Reve- 
lation, St. James, the Tree of Jesse, scenes of the life of Jesus, 
and the Last Judgment, which is really the central theme of 
the whole. No other sculptures in Spain exhibit such skill in 
composition, such poetic imagination, and such dramatic 
power as these, at any rate not before the great creations of 
Gothic art. Moreover, the dignity in forms and attitudes, 
the expressive faces, 

and the excellence 
of workmanship 
equal the grandeur 
of the composition. 
An inscription gives 
the date, 1183, and 
the name of the 
artist, magister 
Matheus. Who this 
Matthew was we do 
not know. The por- 
tico as a whole has 
no prototype in 
Spain, but bears 
some resemblance 
to the porches at 
Chartres, more to 
the narthex at 
Vezelay, and per- 
haps still more to 
the south porch at 
Bourges. In the 
style of the sculptures the qualities of the school 

Figure 128. — Santiago de Compostela ; 



Toulouse are most marked, but features of the styles of 
Provence and northern France are also present. Whether 
Spaniard or Frenchman, Matthew was a great artist, who 
familiar with the chief artistic movements of his 


day. The influence of his work is seen in several build- 
ings in the province of Galicia, but endured only for a 
short time. 


French and Other Influences seen in Various Churches. — 
The side portals of the church of San Isidro at Leon, which 
recall the sculptures of St. Sernin at Toulouse, belong to the 
first half of the twelfth century, and may well be the work of 
the sculptors of the side portals of Santiago de Compostela. 
At Soria, in Old Castile, the facade of San Tome resembles 
Poitevin works, but contains elements which can be attrib- 
uted only to a Spanish artist. At Avila the earlier parts 
of the sculptures of the church of San Vicente, which date 
from a time about the beginning of the thirteenth century, 
are in great measure due to French artists of the Burgundian 
school. The resemblance to the sculptures of Vezelay and 
x\vallon is marked. This is an almost unique example of 
pure Burgundian art in Spain. A local school, based upon 
the teachings of the imported artists, soon developed at Avila, 
and much of the sculpture of San Vicente is the work of local 
sculptors. In some cases the statue columns of France were 
imitated in Spain, for instance in the porch of San Martin at 

At Ripoll, in Catalonia, the whole lower part of the front 
of the church is covered with reliefs which are not French 
in appearance. The suggestion of M. Bertaux that they 
may be the work of Lombard sculptors is not without some 
probability, though the reliefs of S. Zeno at Verona, which he 
cites, do not offer a close parallel. Li any case, the extension 
of the reliefs over the whole fa9ade is doubtless due to Spanish 
taste, which demanded profusion rather than careful arrange- 
ment of sculptures. The date of this work is toward the end 
of the twelfth century. 

The fapade of Notre Dame la Grande, at Poitiers, is recalled 
by that of San Miguel at Estella (Navarre) and still more 
by that of Santa Maria la Real at Sangiiesa. Here the sculp- 
tures belong to several schools. The statues beside the door- 
way resemble those of the western facade of Chartres, the 
tympanum and the large figures above (Christ seated between 
the symbols of the evangelists, prophets, and apostles) are 
products of the school of Languedoc, and the confused and ill- 
wrought reliefs in the spandrels are clearly local work, as 



are also the monsters and checker patterns that cover the 
archi volts (Fig. 129). Spanish taste, derived perhaps from 
Moorish tradition, is seen in the covering of the whole surface 
with carving. 

Spanish Tombs of the Eleventh, Tivelfth, and Thirteenth 
Centuries. — Spanish tombs of the eleventh century are simple, 
decorated merely with patterns of lines and scrolls. Even 
in the twelfth century few are adorned with figures. In the 
thirteenth century they become richer, but the number of 

Figure 129. — Tympanum of S. Maria la Real. Sangiiesa. 

those with figure sculpture is still not very great. The most 
magnificent among them, the reliquary of St. Vincent and 
his sisters, in the church of San Vicente, at Avila, is covered 
with very delicately chiselled reliefs which recall the Bur- 
gundian school of sculpture. Far less ornate, but somewhat 
similar in the style of its sculpture, is a sarcophagus in the 
cathedral of Lugo, upon which two angels are seen bearing 
the soul of the deceased to heaven. Thjs motif appears on 
reliquaries of Limoges enamel and is not uncommon in the 
reliefs of Spanish tombs. One of those upon which it appears 
is the tomb of a templar in the church of the Magdalen at 



Zamora. Here the figure of the deceased hes upon the sar- 
cophagus, and the rehefs are set in the wall above. The 
tomb is sheltered under a cumbrous dais supported on heavy- 
columns. The capitals and spandrels are covered with mon- 
sters in relief. The effect of the whole is sumptuous and 
barbaric. Among tombs of the thirteenth century, some, 
with recumbent effigies on the sarcophagus, are adorned with 

Figure 130. — Sarcophagus of Queen Berenguela. Burgos. 

many figures of mourners and attendants, generally of rude 
workmanship, others are decorated in Mudejar (Moorish) 
style, and still others combine the two. In the monastery of 
Las Huelgas, at Burgos, are many royal tombs (not to be 
seen by visitors). That of Queen Berenguela, who died in 
1244, is Romanesque in form, but its sculpture is in the French 
Gothic style of the thirteenth century (Fig. 130). On the 
top are the Annunciation and the Flight into Egypt, on one 
long side the Adoration of the Magi and the Slaughter of the 



Innocents, on one end the Coronation of the Virgin. The 
figures are short and thick-set, and the features of the Virgin 

FiGtrKE 131. — Cathedral of Burgos ; Puerta del Sarmental. 

too strongly accentuated. The sculptor was probably a 
Spanish pupil of the French artists of the cathedral of Burgos. 



The Cathedral at Burgos. — This cathedral was begun in 
1221, and is essentially French Gothic. The sculptures of 
the western facade are of later date. The door of the south 
transept {Puerta del Sarmental) is a work of the first half of 
the thirteenth century (Fig. 131). In the tympanum is the 

figure of Christ seated 

among the four evangelists 
and their sjonbols ; below, 
on the lintel, are figures 
of prophets; the statue of 
St. James, on the support 
of the lintel, is remarkably 
dignified and impressive, 
and the statues beside the 
door are hardly less excel- 
lent. The door of the 
north transept is similar 
in style. Here the central 
motif is the Last Judg- 
ment, and among the 
blessed are Ferdinand of 
Castile and his queen, the 
latter in Spanish costume. 
This portal was certainly 
finished before 1257. The 
door of the cloister, of 
the second half of the 
thirteenth century, is a 
masterpiece of interior 
sculpture. In style it re- 
sembles the contemporary 
work of the choir screen 
of Chartres and the apostles in the Sainte Chapelle in Paris. 
It is probably, therefore, the work of a French sculptor. 

The Cathedral at Leon. — The French style of the cathedral 
of Burgos was imitated by Spaniards at Sasamon and also, 
though somewhat rudely, at Burgo de Osma ; but the purest 
example of French Gothic in Spain is the cathedral at Leon. 

Figure 1.32. — Cathedral of Leon ; 
Statues of Western Portal. 


This was founded earlier than the cathedral at Burgos, but 
its sculptures belong to the last quarter of the thirteenth 
century. The central door of the south transept imitates 
the Puerta del Sarmental at Burgos, but exhibits greater 
delicacy in detail and more undercutting. The portal of 
the north transept is similar in style. The west porch imi- 
tates the side portals of Chartres in arrangement ; but the 
style of the charming sculptures resembles that of Bourges 
(Fig. 132). The Virgin (Nuestra Senora la Blanco) on the 
support of the central lintel is a charming Spanish figure, 
painted white, with black eyes and darkened eyebrows, but 
the work is French throughout. Some of the other statues 
are probably local work, and some were carved in the four- 
teenth century and worked over at later times. 

Other Sculpture of the Thirteenth Century. — The French 
style, but in stiffer and heavier form, is seen in the portals at 
Toro and Ciudad Rodrigo, which may be the work of sculp- 
tors from Leon. Several Madonnas at various places seem 
to be French work, and others, though French in manner, 
reproduce Spanish forms and features. But French Gothic 
sculpture appears only sporadically in Spain in the thirteenth 
century. Generally, with Romanesque architecture, an ar- 
chaic style of sculpture persists, which exhibits some French 
influence and also something of Moorish {Mudejar) taste in 
decoration. Examples of this are at Tudela, Logrono, 
Agramunt, Estella, and Cirauqui. 

Continued French Influence in the Fourteenth Century. — 
In the fourteenth century French influence continues to 
dominate in Spanish sculpture, though a few Italian works 
exist in Aragon. In the western and southern provinces 
there is little sculpture. In general, sculpture in Spain, as in 
southern France, passes abruptly from the Romanesque 
style to a developed and complicated Gothic. 

Navarre. — The cloisters and portals of Pampeluna 
(Navarre) form a veritable museum of French sculpture of 
the fourteenth century. The work was begun near the be- 
ginning of the century and finished near its end. The artist 
of some of the earlier parts was Jacques Perut, a skilful 


workman who was, however, more successful in small than 
in large figures, and who adopted somewhat heavy propor- 
tions for the human form. The two doors are later, and the 
somewhat coarse work of the sculptures may be ascribed to 
local sculptors who imitated the French style. The powerful, 
but rather crowded tympanum relief of the Death of the 
Virgin is Flemish (or Franco-Flemish), and dates from about 
1400. The style of Jacques Perut is seen in the great porch 
of the cathedral at Mtoria, though whether this is his own 
work or that of his pupils cannot now be determined. 

In other churches of Navarre the French style is more 
mixed with local elements. In general the old Romanesque 
type of fafade is preserved, and the sculpture, only partially 
French in style, is incorporated in it. This is the case, for 
instance, in Santa Maria la Real, at Olite, the portal of which 
was begun toward the end of the thirteenth century. The 
tympanum is French, the sides of the doorway are decorated 
with foliage and scrolls in Spanish taste, the archivolts are 
covered with foliage of the vine and the oak, figures being 
carved on only two voussoirs, which are inserted with no 
regard for sjonmetry or effect, and the apostles in niches on 
the wall are in various styles. In some cases, such as San 
Saturnin at Artajona or San Sepulcro at Estella, there is 
greater uniformity than in this instance, but some mixture of 
styles is observable e^'er>'where in Navarre. 

Leon ayid Castile. — In the cloisters at Leon and Oviedo, of 
the first half of the fourteenth century, the anecdotic realism 
which distinguishes the contemporary French relief sculpture 
is noticeable, and this is even more the case in the chapel of 
St. Catharine in the cathedral at Burgos (1316-1354). At 
Toledo the decoration of the cathedral was begun in the first 
half of the fourteenth century, and the entrance to the north 
transept {Pueiia del Reloj) belongs to this time. It appears 
to be the work of a Spaniard who was well acquainted with 
French sculpture. It exhibits great liveliness and much 
movement, but is somewhat lacking in elegance, and the 
tympanum, with its four rows of rather crowded figures, is a 
trifle monotonous. 


Catalonia. — Only in Catalonia does the sculpture of the 
churches exhibit much independence in the fourteenth 
century. Here, at Tarragona, the decoration of the cathedral, 
begun in French style about 1278, was finished in 1375 by 
Jayme Castalys, whose name proclaims his Catalan origin. 
His figures are robust and powerful, but clumsy, with big 
heads and coarse draperies. The statues of the portal of the 
cathedral of Lerida, now in the local museum, are somewhat 
similar. In 1389 Pere (Pedro) Morey, another Catalan, 
began the portal of the cathedral at Palma in Majorca, but 
finished only the Virgin on the lintel. He died in 1394, and 
in that year his brother Guillem designed, but did not exe- 
cute, the side portal at Gerona, where the statues of the twelve 
apostles are the work (1458) of Anton Claperos of Barcelona. 
These Catalan sculptors, though they exhibit some original- 
ity, lack technical skill and refinement. 

Tombs of the Fourteenth Century. — The tombs of the four- 
teenth century were rich and splendid, but the richest among 
them were of metal and have disappeared. The type of 
tomb set against the wall and adorned with "weepers" retains 
its popularity. The most remarkable group of tombs is at 
Tarragona in Aragon. Here, in the church of Santa Creus, 
are several relatively simple tombs of nobles, and here King 
Pedro lies in an ancient porphyry sarcophagus, over which is 
a high marble cover in the shape of a reliquary adorned with 
figures of the twelve apostles, above which is a marble 
canopy. This tomb is dated 1306. The tomb of King 
Jaime and his queen, with recumbent effigies, is six years 
later. Of the tombs by Jayme Castalys in the church of the 
monastery of Poblet only fragments now remain. Other 
tombs are at Puig, near Valencia, and in the church of Santo 
Domingo (Valencia), from which the tomb of Don Felipe 
Boil, who died in 1384, has been taken to the museum in 
Madrid. This exhibits the type with recumbent effigy and 
"weepers," but is rather carelessly executed. A somewhat 
similar tomb of a member of the same family is still in Valen- 
cia. At Palma, Majorca, the tomb of the bishop Antonio 
Galiana (1375) is of the same type, set in a niche framed by a 


multifoil arch. A second similar tomb (1385) is in the same 
church. The finest of all these monuments is that of Lope 
Fernandez de Luna, archbishop of Saragossa, who died in 
1382. Over the tomb is a small dome with stalactite ceiling 
in Moorish style, once freely gilded, incrusted with glass, 
and lighted by lamps. On the sarcophagus lies a remarkable 
efRgy, and small figures cover the front of the sarcophagus and 
are ranged along the ends and back of the niche. This sculp- 
ture is remarkable for its variety both in the treatment of 
drapery and in the expression of grief. 

Interior Sculptures. — The interior sculptures of churches 
are often rich and elaborate in the fourteenth century, though 
their splendor grew in later times. At Toledo the screen of 
the capilla mayor is of marble, in a mixture of Gothic and 
Mudejar style, with large figures in high relief. These figures 
are distinguished from French work only by their dignified 
stiffness. In general, the interior statues and statuettes of 
this century are not very finely wrought, with the possible 
exception of some alabaster statuettes in Catalonia. Such 
alabaster figures were combined with reliefs in Gothic frames 
to form retablos (reredoses). Other retablos were made of 
metals and of gilded wood, and some of the work in these 
materials is very delicate. 

Flemish Influence in the Fiftee?ith Century. — In the fif- 
teenth century the prevailing influence in Spanish sculpture 
was Flemish rather than French. The tomb of King Carlos 
III, of Navarre, and his queen, in the cathedral of Pampeluna, 
is the work of Janin Lomme, from Tournai. In a general way 
it resembles the tombs of the Dukes of Burgundy at Dijon 
(p. 214). On the tomb lie alabaster effigies, and in Gothic 
niches in its four sides are mourners — gentlemen, monks, 
bishops, and two cardinals. But there are no little angels, as 
at Dijon, nor is there so much movement among the mourners. 
This tomb was begun in 1416 ; but Janin Lomme was in 
Pampeluna in 1411, the year in which the tomb of Philip 
the Bold was finished. The tomb of Lionel of Navarre 
(died in 1413) at Pampeluna, though not a free-standing 
tomb, exhibits the same style of sculpture and is attributed 


to Janin Lomme. The tomb of Frances de Villa Espesa (died 
in 1427) and his wife is also of similar style, and some inferior 
works at Pampeluna may be attributed to Janin Lomme's 
school. These tombs at Pampeluna and the tomb of Jean 
Due de Berry at Bourges, by Jean Mosselmans of Ypres 
(1433), show the importance of the school of Tournai and the 
similarity of its style to that of Claus Sluter. Possibly the 
presence of Janin Lomme and his helpers at Pampeluna may 
explain the fact that Juan de la Huerta was chosen as the 
artist of the tomb of Duke John the Fearless at Dijon. 

Sculpture in Aragon in the Fifteenth Century. — In the 
kingdom of Aragon, and especially in Catalonia, sculpture 
flourished in the fifteenth century. Part of the south portal 
of the cathedral of Palma (Majorca), by Johan of Valen- 
ciennes (1393-1397) and Enrich Alamant is mediocre, but 
later other northern sculptors came, whose names are un- 
known, but whose works proclaim them real masters. The 
two most noted sculptors of Aragon are, however, Guillem 
Sagrera and Pere (Pedro) Juan de Vallfogona. The former 
was also an architect. He designed the Lotze or bourse of 
Palma, the sculptures of which are Flemish in their ample, 
vigorous forms and draperies, but have a lightness and refine- 
ment peculiar to themselves. In 1450 the artist went to 
Naples, where he died before the end of August, 1453. His 
work at Naples, which was especially in the creation of 
splendid tombs, was continued by members of his family, 
Juan and Jaime Sagrera, and his son, Francesch, and brother, 
Miquel, practised the art of sculpture in Spain. At Valencia 
the sculptures of the sides of the old house of deputies and 
the municipal building (the fronts are modern) imitate the 
Flemish style, but are more sober and severe. The bourse 
of Valencia, built between 1482 and 1493, imitates Sagrera's 
building at Palma, but the sculptors of the grotesques and 
small angels which form its decoration were Roland from 
Germany and Laurent Picard from France. At Barcelona 
the St. George on the keystone of the fountain (1450) is by 
Anton Claperos, as is probably also the St. George in a 
medallion in the cloister of the C3,thedral. These are spirited 


reliefs. The same sculptor modelled terra-cotta statues for 
the Portal of the Apostles at Girona. 

But the most unportant sculpture of the fifteenth century 
in Catalonia is seen in the interior of churches. Tombs, to 
be sure, are still set against the wall in niches, with 
"mourners," and differ little from those of the pre\'ious 
century ; but the retablos (reredoses) attain to new splendor. 
Their reliefs and statues show strong Flemish influence, but 
the retablos themselves are made of alabaster or marble, 
not of wood, and have not, like those of Flanders, folding 
wings. They are also much larger and are higher in propor- 
tion to their width than the Flemish altarpieces. One of the 
first great retablos is that of Vich, begun in 1420 by Pere 
(Pedro) Oiler. The statues of St. Peter and the Virgin, one 
above the other, are flanked by twelve reliefs (the lives of 
St. John and of Mary) on a high predella. Still larger is the 
retablo begun in 1426 by Pere (Pedro) Johan (Juan) de 
Vallfogona and Guillem de la jNIota at Tarragona. The 
latter carved the heavy reliefs of the body of the retablo; 
Vallfogona carved the predella and also that of the great 
retablo of Saragossa, where he fell ill in August, 144:5, after 
which we hear no more of him. The reliefs of the predella at 
Tarragona represent the conversion and martjTdom of St. 
Thecla, those at Saragossa the martjTdom of Sts. Lawrence, 
Vincent, and Valerius, with marvellous richness of detail. 
The blue glass background is enlivened with arabesques of 
gold. Each scene has its own landscape, resembling in this 
respect the reliefs of Florentine and Sienese goldsmiths ; the 
rocks and trees are like those in Giotto's pictures ; but the 
foregrounds are finished with Flemish care for detail. The 
work is like Flemish painting carved in alabaster, with im- 
mense realism and imagination. The colossal statues of the 
retablo at Tarragona, representing the Virgin, St. Paul, and 
St. Thecla, are by Vallfogona. At Saragossa the upper part 
of the retablo (1470-1480) is by a German, Ans (Hans), whose 
work resembles that of Veit Stoss at Cracow. The alabaster 
figures are of natural size, with heavy draperies. At the 
left is the Transfiguration, at the right the Ascension, in the 



middle the Adoration of the Magi. This superb work was 
imitated by Damian Forment, early in the sixteenth century, 
in the church of the Pilar, at Saragossa. A small retablo in 
New York (Fig. 133) is from the atelier of Pere Johan de 
Vallfogona. Among that artist's helpers were Pedro and 
Miguel Navarro, who may have brought from Navarre the 
teachings of Janin Lomme; but most of the imagers em- 
ployed in the cathedral after 1420 were French or Flemish. 

Figure 133. — Alabaster Retablo in the Style of Vallfogona. Metropolitan 
Museum, New York. 

The Virgen del Pilar at Saragossa, a charming statuette of 
the fifteenth century, is by such a Franco-Fleming or by an 
Aragonese of French-Flemish training. 

All kinds of relief, in all materials, were much practised in 
the kingdom of Aragon, especially in Catalonia. The choir 
stalls of the cathedral of Saragossa, which bear the arms of 
the Archbishop Dalmacio del Mur, who ordered the great 
retablo, are by Mudejar artists and Catalans, among them 


Francesch Gomar. He and his brother Anton imitated these 
stalls in the cathedral at Tarragona. The somewhat less splen- 
did stalls at Barcelona are by Martin Bonafe (1457) ; their 
openwork pinnacles (1483) are by Michael Longuer, a German. 

Flemish and German Work in Castile and Leon. — Flemish 
and German work appears also in Castile and Leon in the 
fifteenth century. In the cathedral of Leon is a Virgin of 
painted stone in Flemish "Burgundian" style, and the tomb 
of King Orlando is, in the parts which belong to this century 
(it was begun in the fourteenth), like the tombs at Dijon, 
with angels, " mourners," and niches. At Oviedo the bearded 
prophets of the portal of the chapel of Alfonso III are prob- 
ably by the same artist. The first Franco-Flemish work in 
Castile is the tomb of Dona Aldonza de Mendoza, whose 
efhgy lies on a sarcophagus simply ornamented with the foli- 
age of the oak. At Seville the tomb of the archbishop 
Cervantes (died in 1453), by Laurent Mercadante, of Brittany, 
with its recumbent effigy, its little angels and miniature 
prophets, is quite in the "Burgundian" style. At Toledo 
Henry van Eyck (called Egas) was employed to finish the 
south transept of the cathedral by constructing the Portal 
of the Lions, and it is probable that he was sculptor as well 
as architect. Alongside of him worked Juan Aleman (John 
the German). The sculptures of the portal are much dis- 
figured by "restoration," but the statues and the little 
figures above the door are German in style rather than Flem- 
ish. Juan de Colonia (John of Cologne), beginning in 1442, 
built the two openwork towers of the cathedral at Burgos. 
He also built the chapel in which the bishop Alonso of 
Carthagena was buried in 1456. The tomb itself, with its 
reliefs of German style, is probably the work of Juan or some 
of his German companions. 

Mediaeval sculpture in Spain is plentiful and often very 
interesting, but it is very largely dependent upon foreign 
teachings and is in great part actually the work of foreigners. 
Nevertheless, Spanish taste affects even those foreigners, 
and in the period after the union of Spain under Ferdinand 
and Isabella Spanish taste makes itself more evident. 


The Early Renaissance 

Definition of the Term Renaissance — Three Periods. — The 
Renaissance may be defined as the rebirth or revival of the 
study of nature and of antiquity. The purpose of mediaeval 
art, the aim of the mediaeval artist, was to express in visible 
form religious sentiments, emotions, thoughts, or even dog- 
mas. Beauty and truth to nature were, on the whole, second- 
ary considerations. There were exceptions, to be sure, and 
toward the end of the Middle Ages naturalism or realism 
developed in northern Europe. In Italy Nicola Pisano had 
exhibited a sense of beauty founded on appreciation of an- 
cient art, but the influence of antiquity is not discernible 
in the work of his successors. Andrea Pisano, Orcagna, 
the artists of the reliefs of the fa9ade at Orvieto, had all a 
sense of beauty, but their work shows neither the influence 
of antiquity nor the direct study of nature in any marked 
degree ; with all its beauty it is strictly mediaeval. In north- 
ern Europe the tendency toward realism began in the four- 
teenth century, and for that reason those who regard the 
study of nature as the chief element of the Renaissance are 
inclined to make the Renaissance begin north of the Alps 
and spread to Italy. On the other hand, the study of ancient 
art exerted little or no influence in northern Europe until 
much later, but went hand in hand with the study of nature 
in Italy, beginning about the beginning of the fifteenth cen- 
tury ; it is therefore proper to begin the study of the Renais- 
sance with Italy. The period of the Italian Renaissance 
may be divided into the Early Renaissance, about 1400 to 
8 257 


1480, the Developed Renaissance, about 1480 to 1550, and 
the Late Renaissance, about 1550 to 1630. The three great 
sculptors of the Early Renaissance are Ghiberti, Donatello, 
and Luca della Robbia; the Developed Renaissance is 
dominated by the genius of Michael Angelo ; the most im- 
portant sculptor of the Late Renaissance is Jean Boulogne, 
called Giovanni Bologna. The sculpture of the seventeenth 
and eighteenth centuries is a continuation of that of the 

Ghiberti. — Lorenzo (di Cione) Ghiberti (1378-1455) was, 
like most of the important sculptors of his time, a Florentine. 
His stepfather, Bartolo di Michele, was a goldsmith, and from 
him Ghiberti no doubt gained the rudiments, at least, of 
that knowledge of metal working which he used to such 
advantage. The chief events of Ghiberti's life are known 
from his own published journal. In his early years he was 
a painter, and in 1400 he went to Rimini to paint some 
frescoes, but in 1401 returned to Florence to compete for the 
commission to make the second bronze doors of the bap- 
tistery. Each competitor was to hand in a bronze relief 
representing the interrupted sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, 
which was to be of the same size and shape as the reliefs 
of Andrea Pisano'sdoor (see p. 191). Ghiberti obtained the 
contract, partly on account of the technical excellence of his 
casting, though the relief offered by Brunelleschi, who after- 
wards became the greatest architect of his time, was so good 
that the judges wished him to share in the work of the door. 
This, however, he refused to do, and the contract with Ghi- 
berti was signed November 23d, 1403. Although the con- 
tract specified that Ghiberti was to work steadily at this 
task, the door was not finished until 1424. There are twenty- 
eight medallions with reliefs, twenty of which represent 
scenes from the New Testament, while the eight lowest 
medallions contain figures of the Evangelists and four Doc- 
tors of the Church. In the corners where the frames of the 
panels cross are busts of prophets and sibyls. . The orna- 
mentation of these frames and of the door-casing consists 
of vines and flowers of great beauty. In the medallions of 


this door Ghiberti followed the style of Andrea Pisano, but 
added grace and variety, richness of composition, and in- 
creased liveliness (Fig. 134). He does not appear as an 
innovator in any marked degree, but as one who adds new 
excellence to the style of earlier artists. The costumes 
he adopts are between those of the Middle Ages and those of 
the Renaissance, and his architecture is not as yet fully 
based on the study of antiquity. The types and attitudes of 
his figures are grave, rather than vivacious; he avoids 
scenes of violent move- 
ment; his composition 
is simple, his arrange- 
ment of figures symmet- 
rical. The perspective 
effects, so important in 
his later and more fa- 
mous door, do not ap- 
pear in this early work. 
The two doors of 
the baptistery absorbed 
the greater part of 
Ghiberti's well-spent 
life, but they are by 
no means his only 
works. In 1409 he was 
inscribed in the arte of 
the goldsmiths, and he 
mentions in his journal several works in gold, among 
them two elaborate mitres, one for Pope Martin V (1419), 
the other for Eugenius IV (1439), both of which have dis- 
appeared. He was a member of a commission to carry on 
the erection of the cathedral, and in 1424 he was enrolled 
as a painter in the corporation of St. Luke, which shows that 
he never relinquished his early interest in painting. His 
existing works, however, are works of sculpture. In 1414 
he did the statue of St. John the Baptist for Or San Michele, 
and began the St. Matthew, which was finished in 1422. 
The St. Stephen is later (1428). In these statues a pro- 

FiGURE 134. — Four Panels of Ghiberti's 
Earlier Door. Florence. 


gressive refinement and simplification of style is discernible, 
but there is little new in them. The drapery of the St. 
Stephen resembles that of Roman statues, but in other re- 
spects these fine figures belong almost to mediaeval art. 
The two bronze panels in the font at Siena were ordered in 
1417 and finished in 1427. In these some of the picturesque 
qualities which distinguish the reliefs of the "Porta del 
Paradiso" are already present. 

In April, 1425, Ghiberti received the commission for the 
third door of the baptistery, called the "Porta del Para- 
diso," which was to be his chief concern until 1452 (Fig. 
135). In this he departed from the style and also from the 
arrangement of Andrea Pisano's door. The subjects, taken 
from the Old Testament, are arranged in ten square panels 
as follows: 1, The Creation, Temptation, and Expulsion 
from Paradise ; 2, Cain and Abel ; 3, Noah ; 4, Abraham ; 
5, Isaac, Esau, and Jacob ; 6, Joseph ; 7, Moses and the 
Tablets of the Law ; 8, Joshua and the Fall of Jericho ; 9, 
David and Goliath ; 10, Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. 
As a rule, several scenes are united in each panel, and this 
interferes with the grouping as a whole, though in each scene 
the figures are well arranged. On the door-casing is a charm- 
ing frieze of foliage, fruits, birds, and small animals. About 
the edges of the doors is an elaborate and beautiful border, 
in which are niches, containing statuettes of prophets and 
other Old Testament characters, and medallions in which 
are busts of various persons, among them Ghiberti and his 
stepfather. These figurines display the most exquisite and 
powerful work, and the reliefs of the panels are wonderful 
in the beauty of their charming figures, fresh landscape, and 
impressive architecture. Here the infiuence of ancient art, 
and also of Donatello, is seen, but the remarkable qualities 
of the work are due to Ghiberti's own genius and love of 
beauty. It is true that landscape and perspective effects 
can be more easily and effectively expressed in painting than 
in relief, and therefore Ghiberti has been criticised for over- 
stepping the bounds of the art of sculpture ; but the beauty 
of his work and the persistence of the admiration it has aroused 


FiGUEE 135. — The; Porta del Paradiso, by Ghiberti. Florence. 

may surely serve as ample justification for his course, even 
though the attempt to follow in his footsteps has been fatal 
to the talent of lesser artists. 
Among the other works of Ghiberti are the magnificent 



shrine of St. Zanobi in the cathedral at Florence and the 
similar but smaller shrine of St. Giacinto, in the Bargello. 
But his greatest works remain the doors of the baptistery. 
His genius was not that of the innovator or the pioneer. He 
did not produce the Renaissance or force it upon his con- 
temporaries, but he improved upon the works of his prede- 
cessors and served as an intermediary 
between mediaeval art and the art of 
the Renaissance. 

Donatello. — Very different is the 
character of Donatello (Donato di 
Niccolo di Betto Bardi, 1386?-1466), 
in whose works the careful study of 
nature and the study of antiquity 
unite to form a style which is not a 
continuation of mediaeval art, but 
something new and different. In his 
early years the realism preponderates, 
and in his late works the influence of 
antiquity is especially marked. The 
number of his works is so great that 
only a comparatively small selection 
can be mentioned here. Among those 
which belong to his early years are 
nine marble statues for the cathedral 
and the campanile at Florence. One 
of these, the so-called Zuccone (Fig. 
136), is especially admired for its ab- 
solute truth to life. The St. John 
the Evangelist, a seated figure now in 
the cathedral, is perhaps the finest among them. It was 
completed in 1421, and certainly served in a measure as the 
prototype for Michael Angelo's Moses. Between 1410 and 
1423 Donatello made four statues for Or San Michele — St. 
Peter, St. Mark, St. Louis, and St. George (now in the 
Bargello), of which the St. George is deservedly the most 
famous. Several of his numerous figures of St. John also 
belong to this period. , ■ 

Figure 136. — "II 
Zuccone," by Donatello. 


In the years from 1423 to 1436, Donatello was associated 
with Michelozzo, who was no great genius, but whose well- 
regulated nature taught Donatello to subordinate his own 
genius to the needs of monumental composition and decora- 
tion. To this period many works belong, among them the 
tomb of Pope John XXIII (1426-1429) in the baptistery 
at Florence and the tomb of Cardinal Brancacci (1427) in 
St. Angelo a Nilo at Naples. The framework for the famous 
reliefs of the pulpit at Prato (1433-1439) is by Michelozzo, 

^ ^ ^ ^ I ^ I -'ik ■* ' ^aW \^ £> ^ It V 1 


v i' f ii P a 


FiGTiRE 137. — Choir Loft, by Donatello. Florence. 

but the still more famous choir loft or cantoria (1433-1440) 
for the cathedral at Florence (now in the Opera del Duomo) 
is entirely by Donatello (Fig. 137). Both these works belong 
to the time after his brief sojourn in Rome (1432-1433). 
In them Donatello shows in charming variety of attitude and 
action the forms of children — the putti which, with or with- 
out wings, are among the most characteristic elements of the 
sculpture and painting of the Italian Renaissance. ' Donatello 
was the first to introduce these delightful little persons freely 
in his compositions, and no other artist used them so much 



or endowed them with such variet}^ of charm as he. The 
dehghtful and original bronze Cupid in trousers (Fig. 138), 
the medalUons copied from ancient cameos^ in the court of 
the Medici palace, the bronze David, the bronze door of the 
sacristy of San Lorenzo, the bronze group of Judith and 
Holofernes, and (probably) the Annunciation, of gray stone, 
in the church of Santa Croce belong, with many other works, 

between the return from Rome 
and the departure, in or about 
1443, for Padua. Up to this 
time Donatello had worked 
much in marble; henceforth 
his work was almost exclu- 
sively modelling in clay for 
casting in bronze. 

At Padua his chief works 
are the choir screen and the 
high altar in the church of St. 
Anthony and the equestrian 
statue of the famous condot- 
tiere Gattamelata. He was 
assisted by others, not merely 
as bronze casters, but also as 
more or less independent art- 
ists ; but the realistic and ad- 
mirably executed Crucifixion, 
most of the other sculptm-es 
of the choir screen, the Ma- 
donna, the St. Louis, the St. 
Francis, the chief bas reliefs 
of the high altar, and the Gattamelata (Fig. 139) ■ are 
Donatello 's own work. In all of these he exhibits the 
greatest ease and freedom in modelling, independence of 
tradition, and careful study of nature. In the Madonna 
the influence of ancient art appears in the hair and head- 
dress, but the expression of the face is quite unlike 
anj^thing in antiquity. The statue of Gattamelata, the 
first great equestrian statue since the fall of the Roman 

FiGCHE 138. — Cupid in Trousers. 
Donatello. Florence. 


Empire, is a masterpiece. The great, powerful horse is 
completely dominated by the rider, whose commanding 
attitude and thoughtful, energetic face are admirably con- 
ceived and are rendered with the greatest truth and the 
utmost delicacy of workmanship. This is not only an ad- 

FiGUBE 139. — Gattamelata, by Donatello. Padua. 

mirable example of Donatello's skill in portraiture, but is 
one of the greatest portraits of all time. 

By 1456, at latest, Donatello was again in Florence. 
Among the works of his latest years are the haggard, but 
powerful St. John the Baptist in Siena and the reliefs, so 
far as they were executed under his supervision, of the high 



altar of San Lorenzo, in Florence. He died December 15, 

Donatello is the great original sculptor of the Early Renais- 
sance. His works are sometimes far from beautiful, but 
they ne\er lack vigor. He studied ancient art and was 
greatly influenced thereby,^ but his chief study was life. 
He was the first sculptor of the Renaissance to represent 
the nude human form in the round ; he it was who so excelled 

in representing the forms of 
children that putti became a 
constant element in the deco- 
rative sculpture of the Renais- 
sance ; and to him is due, in 
part, at least, the importance 
of classical motifs in Renaissance 
ornamentation. Ghiberti, with 
his unsurpassed sense of beauty 
and his excellent workmanship, 
offered a gentle transition from 
mediaeval art to that of the 
Renaissance ; Donatello, the 
original thinker and bold inno- 
vator, entered at once into the 
Renaissance fully and com- 

L^ica della Robbia. — Luca 
della Robbia (1399-1482), less 
original and less dramatic in his 
art than Donatello, but more realistic than Ghiberti, stands 
thus in a measure between his two great fellow-citizens. His 
first attested work is themarblecantoriaorchoir gallery (1431- 
1438) , made for the cathedral at Florence and now in the Opera 
del Duomo (Fig. 140). The ten panels illustrate the 150th 
psalm ; in the first and last are singing boys (the " halleluiah 
panels," corresponding to the words "praise ye the Lord"), 
and in the others are boys playing instruments and (in one) 

Figure 140. — Panel of Choir 
Loft, bj' Luca della Robbia. 

'Osvald Siren, "The Importance of the Antique to Donatello," Americore 
Journal of Archaeology, XVIII, 1914, pp. 438-461. 


dancing, as commanded in the psalm. The boys stand on 
clouds and are therefore to be regarded as angels, though 
only two of them are winged. The excellence of composi- 
tion, the grace of attitudes, beauty of faces, and purity of 
religious feeling make these reliefs the most famous and popu- 
lar of Luca's works. His other works in marble are five 
reliefs in panels on the campanile (1437-1439), reliefs for 
the marble altar of S. Pietro (1439), the Peretola tabernacle 
(1441-1443), with its terra-cotta lunette, and the Federighi 

' jiOf**^ 

Figure 141. — Terra-cotta Altarpiece, by Luoa della Robbia. Pescia. 

tomb (1455-1456), framed in glazed terra-cotta. His bronze 
works are the heads of prophets (1445-1452) and the relief 
panels (1464-1469) of the door of the sacristy of the cathedral 
in Florence. In all these he shows himself a master. 

The known works of Luca della Robbia number 127, and 
all except those already mentioned are of polychrome glazed 
terra-cotta (Fig. 141). The use of color in sculpture, espe- 
cially of terra-cotta, was common enough, in fact universal, 
but Luca invented a method of covering the colors with a 
glaze which protects them and adds to their brilliancy. His 
many works in glazed terra-cotta are distinguished for beauty 


of form and color, as well as for their dignity and pure reli- 
gious sentiment. The earlier among them show the influ- 
ence of Ghiberti and perhaps of the goldsmith Leonardo di 
Ser Giovanni, who is said to have been his first teacher; 
the later works exhibit more independence. Usually the 
color is confined to eyes, eyebrows, and similar details, though 
sometimes Luca employs colored glazes for larger parts of 
the surface. Nearly all his works are in or near Florence. 

Andrea della Rohhia. — Andrea della Robbia (1437- 
1528), Luca's nephew, used color more freely and extended 
the use of glazed terra-cotta to many of the smaller towns, 
especially in Tuscany. His early works resemble those of 
his uncle in their simple dignity, and throughout most of his 
career he produced reliefs of great beauty, grace, and charm, 
though his latest works are somewhat sentimental. Per- 
haps the best known, though hardly the most important, of 
his reliefs are the infants in the medallions of the Foundling 
Hospital (Spedale degli Innocenti) in Florence. 

The School of the Delia Robbia. — Andrea's sons, Giovanni 
(1469-1527), Fra ^Nlattia, Fra Ambrogio, Luca di Andrea, 
and Girolamo (1488-1566), continued to produce glazed 
terra-cottas in the next century. The font in S. Maria 
Novella (1497), by Giovanni, resembles his father's work, 
but his very numerous later productions are inferior. The 
high altar at jNIontecassiano (1527), by Fra Mattia, is inter- 
esting and attractive ; none of Andrea's sons, however, was 
a great artist. Girolamo, the youngest, went to France, 
where his best-known production was the terra-cotta work of 
the Chateau de Madrid, just outside of Paris. 

Besides Ghiberti, Donatello, and Luca della Robbia and 
his school, several other Florentine sculptors of the fifteenth 
century deser\-e especial mention. In addition to these 
there are many more whose names are known, and still others 
whose names are not recorded, but whose works, especially 
colored terra-cotta reliefs of the Madonna, are often of con- 
siderable merit. 

Narini di 5a n co. — Nanni di Banco (1374?-1420), the 
son of the Antonio who worked with Niccolo di Piero in 


decorating the Porta della Mandorla (page 196), was older than 
Donatello, but was greatly influenced by him. His St. 
Philip (1407 ?), a group of four saints (1408 ?), and St. Eligius 
(1415) are in niches of Or San Michele ; his seated St. Luke 
(about 1415) is in the cathedral. In all these the heads are 
fine and expressive. Under the group of four saints is an 

FiGTTRE 142. — Assumption of the Virgin, by Nanni di Banco. Florence. 

interesting relief representing a sculptor's workshop. In 
the Assumption (Fig. 142) over the Porta della Mandorla, 
which seems to have occupied his last years, Nanni followed 
the manner of Orcagna and produced a work of remarkable 
beauty and charm, but mediaeval in style. 

Michebzzo. — Michelozzo Michelozzi (1396-1472), best 
known as an architect, was also a sculptor, who worked with 



Donatello and others. He possessed excellent technique, 
both as a bronze-caster and as a worker of stone, and his 
works are attractive, though not strikingly original. 

Agostino di Duccio. — Agostino di Duccio (b. 1418 ; d. 
after 1481) was a pupil of Donatello. He lived much in 
banishment, and his works are for the most part outside of 
Florence, in Modena, Rimini, and Perugia. His sculptures 
are full of grace and animation, but he never rises to genius 
and sometimes offends by mannerism. 
The rich and beautiful facade of the 
oratory of San Bernardino at Perugia 
(1459-1461), in which colored marble 
and terra-cotta are employed, is per- 
haps his most important work (Fig. 

Desiderio. — Desiderio da Settignano 
(1428-1464) is also regarded as a pupil 
of Donatello, with whom he seems to 
have collaborated in the Pazzi chapel. 
His workmanship is exquisite, his taste 
pure, his ornamental work light and 
graceful. His most important works are 
the tomb of Carlo Marsupini, in Santa 
Croce, and the tabernacle in San Lor- 
enzo ; but his small reliefs, his busts of 
St. John the Baptist and the infant 
Jesus, and his portrait busts would 
alone suffice to establish his reputation as 
a sculptor of distinguished talent. 
The Rossellini. — Bernardo Rossellino (1409-1464), the 
son of Matteo Gambarelli, of Settignano, was a sculptor of 
note, though better known as an architect. His early 
works are still somewhat mediaeval in character, but his 
masterpiece, the tomb of Leonardo Bruni, in Santa Croce, is a 
brilliant example of the style of Donatello's immediate 
successors, in which the great innovator's uncompromising 
realism is softened, without losing its vigor. Antonio 
Rossellino (1427-1478) was at first much influenced by his 

Figure 143. — An- 
gelic Musicians, by 
Agostino di Duccio. 


elder brother Bernardo, but exhibits complete independence 
by 1461, the date of the beautiful tomb of the Cardinal of 
Portugal, in San Miniato, in which vigor, grace, and orig- 
inality are admirably combined. His little St. John, in 
the Opera del Duomo, is full of charm. In the relief of the 
Nativity, in the church of Monte Oliveto, at Naples, Antonio 
produced a picturesque relief which rivals those of Ghiberti's 
Porta del Paradiso. 

Mino da Fiesole. — Mino da Fiesole (1431-1484), the 
intimate friend of Desiderio da Settignano, visited Rome as 
early as 1454, again about 1463, and again about 1475-1481, 
when he, with Giovanni Dalmata, made a number of tombs, 
the most important of which is the tomb of Pope Paul II. 
His works in Rome, Florence, and elsewhere are very nu- 
merous, many of them tombs (Fig. 144). Some exhibit more 
animation than others, but in general, with all their gentle- 
ness, sweetness, and even dignity, they lack energy and vigor. 
Mino worked with great ease and rapidity, yet few artists 
have given to their marble more finish than he. He exercised 
great influence, especially in Rome, not by the originality of 
his works, but by their great number and their general, 
though not very distinguished, excellence. 

Benedetto da Majano. — Benedetto da Majano (1442- 
1497), who worked with Antonio Rossellino and Desiderio 
at Naples and Florence, excelled the former in the expression 
of profound sentiments and the latter in the arrangement of 
figures in groups. His works are far less numerous than those 
of Mino da Fiesole, which they equal in delicacy of technique 
and surpass in animation and composition. His angel 
figures are especially admirable. Perhaps his finest work is 
the altar in the church of Monte Oliveto at Naples. 

Matteo Civitale. — Matteo Civitale of Lucca (1435- 
1501) belongs to the Florentine school and is a follower, 
though not a mere imitator, of Antonio Rossellino. Many, 
but by no means all, of his works are in his native city. They 
are distinguished for freshness and earnestness of feeling 
rather than for technical perfection. 

Most of the Florentine sculptors after Donatello were 



FiGUBE 144. 

-Tomb of Count Ugo, Marchese di Toscana, by Mino 
da Fiesole. Florence. 


almost exclusively marble workers (except that the school of 
the della Robbia worked in terra-cotta) and most of their 
works were decorative sculpture in connection with archi- 
tecture. Sculpture in bronze, to which Donatello's later 
years had been devoted, was, however, continued, and in 
this kind of work the sculptors aimed to add to Donatello's 
naturalism greater beauty and charm together with techni- 
cal perfection. The foremost of these artists were Pollaiuolo 
and Verrocchio. 

Antonio del Pollaiuolo. — Antonio del Pollaiuolo (1432- 
1498), the greatest goldsmith, draughtsman, and anatomist 
of his time, was also a painter and a sculptor. His chief 
works of sculpture are the tombs of Pope Sixtus IV and Pope 
Innocent VIII, in St. Peter's, Rome. The former (finished 
in 1493) is entirely of bronze and is unlike any other tomb. 
Raised slightly above the floor on concave sides is the flat 
slab on which lies the effigy of the Pope, surrounded by reliefs 
of the seven Virtues. On the concave sides are representa- 
tions of the seven Arts, Rhetoric, Dialectics, Theology, 
Grammar, Geometry, Music, and Arithmetic, to which is 
added Perspective, at that time a new and much-studied 
science. The figure of the Pope is powerful and impressive, 
though the face (evidently a true portrait) is not beautiful. 
The lesser figures are full of grace and charm, and the work- 
manship is extremely delicate. The monument of Innocent 
VIII is built into the wall. On the sarcophagus lies the 
effigy, and above is the seated figure of the Pope, at the sides 
of which are the Virtues wrought in relief. The two por- 
traits of the Pope are apparently made from a death mask. 
The workmanship is admirable throughout, and the effect 
of the whole monument is striking. Other works of sculp- 
ture by Pollaiuolo are a few busts, several statuettes, and a 
small number of reliefs in which the craftsmanship of the 
goldsmith-sculptor is conspicuous. 

Verrocchio. — Andrea di Clone, called Verrocchio (1435- 
1488) was, like Pollaiuolo, trained as a goldsmith and was 
also a painter. Almost at the outset of his career he gained 
the favor of the Medici, for whom many of his works were 



created, among them the marble fountain and the bronze 
monument of Piero and Giovanni dei Medici (1472) in the 
sacristy of San Lorenzo, several portrait busts, the bronze 

Figure 145. — CoUeoni, by Verrocchio. Venice. 

David (about 1465) in the Bargello, the Boy with a Fish 
in the Palazzo Vecchio, and the monuments of Francesca 
di Luca Pitti (Tuornabuoni, d. 1477) and Cardinal Forti- 


guerri (d. 1473) at Pistoia. The bronze group of Christ 
and St. Thomas, in a niche of Or San Michele, was ordered 
in 1465 and finished in 1483. In 1479 Verrocchio was called 
to Venice to undertake the equestrian statue of the condot- 
tiere Bartolommeo CoUeoni (Fig. 145), but he died in 1488 
before the completion of the work, which was finally cast 
and set up by the Venetian Alessandro Leopardi. The 
statue is, however, essentially Verrocchio's work. The 
number of his lesser works, scattered in various collections, 
is considerable. Verrocchio is distinguished for his excellent 
workmanship, his careful study of nature, and the beauty and 
charm of his figures, qualities which are admirably exhibited 
in the graceful, vigorous, and delightful bronze David. The 
CoUeoni is perhaps the finest of all equestrian statues. More 
theatrical than Donatello's Gattamelata, it is also more 
animated and more perfectly finished. This work alone 
would suffice to place Verrocchio among the great sculptors 
of the Renaissance. 

Siena. Jacopo della Querela. — Florence was the chief cen- 
tre of sculpture in the Early Renaissance, but other cities 
were not without sculptors. At Siena Jacopo della Querela 
(1374-1438) is the most important and far the most original 
artist. In his decoration, in the curving lines of his figures, 
in the thick, almost clumsy folds of his draperies, and in his 
lack of anatomical knowledge he is still mediaeval, but in 
the vigor and animation of his powerful figures the spirit 
of the Renaissance is manifest. Owing to his lack of anatomi- 
cal knowledge, his reliefs are generally superior to his stat- 
ues. The earliest known work currently ascribed to him, 
on the authority of Vasari, is the tomb of Ilaria del Carretto, 
at Lucca, which was probably erected in 1406. This tomb, 
especially the recumbent effigy of the deceased lady, is a 
work of great beauty and refinement; but the ascription 
to Jacopo della Querela has been questioned,^ and certainly 
the style of the recumbent effigy is far more delicate than 
that of any other work of this sculptor. Apart from this 

' A. Marquand, "The Tomb of Ilaria del Carretto," American Journal of 
Archaeology, XIX, 1915, pp. 24-33. 



tomb his most important works are the fountain (Fontana 
Gaia, 1409-1419) at Siena, now for the most part destroyed, 
the font in the baptistery at Siena (1417-1430; the statuette 
of St. John, four reliefs of prophets, and the bronze reHef 
■ of Zacharias driven from the temple are his), and the portal 
of San Petronio, at Bologna (1425-1438; Fig. 146). The 
sculptured decoration of this portal is his greatest work. 
At the sides of the door and on the lintel are low reliefs repre- 

FiGURE 146. — Portal of San Petronio, Bologna, by Jacopo della Querela. 

senting scenes from the life of Christ and from Genesis, and 
in the lunette are figures of St. Anthony, the Virgin, and St. 
Petronius, carved in the round. These powerful and dra- 
matic works seem to have exerted no little influence upon 
Michael Angelo. 

Other Sienese Sculptors. — Other Sienese sculptors are 
Antonio Federighi (ca. 1425-1490), Giovanni di Stefano 
Sassetta (working 1466-1499), Lorenzo Vecchietta {ca. 
1412-1480), Turino di Sano, his son Giovanni di Turino 


(d. ca. 1454), Francesco di Giorgio (1439-1502), Giacomo 
Cozzarelli (1453-1515), Neroccio di Bartolommeo (1457- 
1500), and Lorenzo di Mariano (d. 1537), called il Marrina.' 
None of these is great, and none continues the manner of 
Jacopo della Querela, though he seems to have exerted some 
influence upon Federighi. This sculptor's works testify 
to diligent study of nature and of ancient art. He is at his 
best in statues and purely decorative work. Perhaps the 
best of his vigorous and dignified figures is his St. Ansanus 
(after 1456) in the Casino del Nobili. Vecchietta's numerous 
works are technically excellent, but show little originality. 
The bronze angels by Francesco di Giorgio in the cathedral 
at Siena (1497) are attractive, but somewhat artificial. 
Lorenzo di Mariano exhibits tenderness of sentiment and 
great richness of ornament. His altar in the church of 
Fontegiusta is an admirable example of these typical qualities 
of Sienese art. 

The Paduan School of Donatello. — Donatello was employed 
at Padua in the creation of extensive works which demanded 
the collaboration of many hands. Some of his assistants 
came with him from Florence, others were Paduans or were 
attracted from other places, and even after Donatello's 
departure Padua remained an important centre of art, partly, 
no doubt, on account of the presence of the painter Man- 
tegna, but in great measure also because Donatello's assist- 
ants continued to practise the art of their master. Their 
works, chiefly in bronze, exhibit the naturalism, the lack of 
care for beauty as an aim in itself, and the fine, rather sharp 
folds of drapery characteristic of Donatello's later style, but 
they lack the freshness and dramatic power of the great 
master's own creations. The influence of the Paduan school 
was widespread, but was strongest in the neighboring cities 
of Mantua and Ferrara. 

Giovanni da Pisa, one of the most gifted of Donatello's 
assistants, is the author of the natural, animated, and attrac- 
tive terra-cotta figures of the altar in the chapel of the Eremi- 

1 Several others are known by name, but they and their works are of 
little importance. 


tani. The less talented Bartolommeo Bellano {ca. 1430- 
1498) was more productive and is therefore more widely 
known. His works are chiefly at Padua, where they com- 
prise several tombs and a series of reliefs on the choir screen 
of San Antonio. He imitated the style of Donatello, but 
his figures lack life and his compositions are ineffective. In 
some of them an artificial striving for dramatic effect is 
evident. Giovanni INIinelli (b. ca. 1460; d. after 1527) 
excelled Bellano in his ornamental work and in the beauty 
of his figures. One of his chief works is the colored terra- 
cotta relief of the baptism of Jesus, in the church of S. Gio- 
vanni at Bassano. His son Antonio worked with him in the 
marble chapel of St. Anthony at Padua. Antonio Briosco, 
called Riccio (1470-1532), a pupil of Bellano, belongs in 
date to the Developed Renaissance. He is the most gifted 
of the Paduan school. Some of his works, such as the 
statue of St. Sebastian (1516) in the cathedral at Treviso and 
the bronze bust of Antonio Trombetta (1522) in the church 
of St. Anthony at Padua, are of life size, but his chief activity 
was in the minor arts. His bronze statuettes, candlesticks, 
jewel-boxes, and small reliefs for the decoration of chests 
and other household objects are admirable. They are various 
and animated, bearing witness to his ability in composition, 
his study of natiu-e and of ancient art, and his techni- 
cal skill. He had numerous followers in this kind of minia- 
ture sculpture, among them those who are known by the 
pseudon^Tns Antico (Pier Jacopo Alari-Bonacolsi, 1460- 
152S), Moderno, and Llacrino.^ 

Sculpture at Bologna. Guido Mazzoni. — At Bologna the 
influence of the Paduan school was strong, though not so 
predominant as at ^Mantua and Ferrara. It is very e-vident 
in the works of the Mantuan Sperandio (1425-1495), who 
passed the latter part of his life at Bologna. He is best 
known as a medal-maker, but several large works of terra- 

^ Such miniature bronze work was ver\' popular. It is somewhat akin 
to the work of the medal-makers, such as Pisanello of Verona (1397-1455) 
and his imitators (Laurana, Sperandio, etc.), the Florentine Niccolo Floren- 
tine (14-30-1514), and the ilantuans Cristoforo Geremia, Lysippus, and 


cotta by his hand are vigorous and natural, though for the 
most part rather carelessly wrought. Niceolo da Bari 
(1414-1494) is called Niceolo dell' Area, from his chief work, 
the area or sarcophagus of St. Domenic in San Domenico 
at Bologna.i In his terra-cotta Madonna on the front of 
the palazzo pubblico at Bologna he appears almost as an 
imitator of Jacopo della Querela, but the area of St. Domenic, 
with its rich ornamentation and its natural, free, and spirited 
figures of saints and prophets, is the work of an independent 

FiuBRE 147. — The Lamentation, by Mazzoui. Modena. 

artist. In the church of Sta. Maria della Vita, at Bologna, 
is another work of Niceolo, a large terra-cotta group of the 
Lamentation over the body of the dead Christ (1463). In 
this the figures are grouped as by chance, the expressions 
and attitudes are unrestrained, the faces and costumes for 
the most part such as were common in Italy at the time. 
This extreme realism was imitated in other groups of terra- 
cotta, the chief subjects of which are the Nativity and the 

' Begun in the thirteenth century (see p. 189). 
on it in 1469. 

Nieeol6 began his work 


Pieta or Lamentation over the body of Jesus. The most 
important artist of such groups was Guido Mazzoni of 
Mantua (1450-1518), whose works are found in various 
parts of Italy. The best and earUest is the Lamentation 
in the church of S. Giovanni at Modena (1477-1480; Fig. 

Lombard Sculpture of the Fifteenth Century. — In Lom- 
bardy the sculpture of the early part of the fifteenth century 
was still mediaeval. In various places, notably ^'erona, 
Florentine sculptors were employed, but their works had 
little influence. At INIilan the sculptures of the cathedral 
show progress towards naturalism, the credit for which may 
be due to the Florentine Xiccolo d' Arezzo, and ]\Iichelozzo's 
activity at Milan, after 1456, increased the influence of 
Florence. But the Lombard sculpture which developed 
soon after the middle of the century shows clearly the influ- 
ence of the Paduan school. Lean figures, irregular, thin 
folds of drapery, a tendency towards dramatic action and 
the expression of strong feeling are seen in Lombard as in 
Paduan sculpture ; but the free use of color and gilding, the 
preference for numerous small figures and groups, the lik- 
ing for wood and terra-cotta as materials, and the habit 
of covering almost the whole exterior of buildings with sculp- 
ture are peculiar to Lombardy. Some of the qualities of 
Lombard sculpture are probably due to Flemish and Ger- 
man works in wood and to northern artists and artisans 
employed in building and adorning the cathedral. Though 
no province of Italy is richer in sculpture of the second half 
of the fifteenth century than Lombardy, the Lombard sculp- 
tors who rise noticeably above the ranks of their fellows are 
relati\'ely few. 

The Mantegazza. Ainadeo. Other Lombard Sculptors. — 
The chief sculptors of the Certosa at Pavia were Cristoforo 
(d. 1482) and Antonio (d. 1495) Mantegazza and Amadeo 
or Omodeo (Giovanni Antonio di Amadei, 1447-1522). The 
work of the Mantegazza is full of feeling, but is restless, 
sometimes exaggerated, and often crowded with small figures. 
Their sharply cut, clinging draperies somewhat resemble 


wet paper (cartaceous drapery) and call to mind the draperies 
of German wood carvings. Amadeo's most extensive works 
are probably among the interior and exterior sculptures of 
the Certosa at Pavia, but it is difficult — not to say impos- 
sible — to distinguish them with certainty from the work of 
his assistants and associates. At Bergamo he did the tombs 
of Medea (1470-1475) and Bartolommeo Colleoni and the 
decorative work of the chapel in which they are contained. 
The Borrommeo tombs at Isola Bella in the Lago Maggiore 
are by him, and many other works are attributed to him with 
more or less certainty. In 1490 he was made director of the 
work at the Certosa at Pavia, and his later years seem to 
have been devoted chiefly to the cathedrals of Pavia and 
Milan. His style partakes of the faults of that of the Mante- 
gazza, but he exhibits more feeling for classic beauty. His 
influence was widespread. His work at the Certosa was 
continued by Briosco (Benedetto di Andizolo Briosco or 
dei Brioschi, working 1490-1510), Gian Cristoforo Romano 
(about the same time), and others, with little change of 

Cristoforo Solari, called il Gobbo, made, about 1498, the 
tomb of Beatrice d' Este, wife of Ludovico il Moro. Only 
the effigies of Beatrice and Ludovico now remain in the Cer- 
tosa. Their draperies retain something of the Lombard 
character, but the statues are dignified and finely executed. 
In some of his later works Solari exaggerates the love of heroic 
and classic nudities which is one of the characteristics of the 
Developed Renaissance. 

Cristoforo Foppa, called Caradosso (1452?-1527) is espe- 
cially famous as a goldsmith and medal-maker. If the 
terra-cotta reliefs in the sacristy of S. Satiro are his work, he 
deserves the credit of introducing a breath of simplicity into 
the Lombard style of overloaded ornamentation. Tom- 
maso Cazzaniga (working 1483) and Andrea Fusina (d. 
1526) made a number of tombs in Milanese churches, which 
exhibit good taste, moderation in ornament, and a fine sense 
of proportion. Agostino Busti, called Bambaja (1480?- 
1548), retained at first some of the finest qualities of the 



Lombard style, but g^adualI.^' fell into mannerism. In his 
unfinished tomb of Gaston de Foix (begun 1515) the recum- 
bent effigy is beautiful and dignified, but the reliefs are pretty, 
artificial, and theatrical. The works of Andrea Bregno 
(1421-1506) are chiefly in Rome, where his style was modi- 
fied by classic influences. Ambrogio da Milano (working 
147.5) is known chiefly by his work at Urbino, Ferrara, and 

Venice. He was an art- 
Tn_^^^^g^Y^,^yi I igt of taste and ability, 
L><^w'TI ^P* i;v4>C>^-~^ but not of marked origi- 

Venetian Sculpture of 
the Early Renaissance. — 
In Venice the transition 
from the Middle Ages 
to the Renaissance took 
place by gradual, almost 
imperceptible, degrees. 
Throughout a large part 
of the fifteenth century 
Gothic decoration and 
mediaeval expression of 
faces were retained even 
in works of sculptors who 
came from other parts of 
Italy. Niccolo d' Arezzo 
and his son Piero, in 1420 
and the following years, 
decorated the upper part 
of the fa9ade of St. 
Mark's ; the same Piero di Niccolo and Giovanni di Martino 
erected the monument of the Doge Tommaso Mocenigo (d. 
1423), in which they show themselves to be Florentine sculp- 
tors under the influence of Donatello and Michelozzo. The 
tomb of Beato Pacifico Buon (1435) is Florentine, and the 
fine corner capital of the Doge's Palace (the Judgment of 
Solomon ; Fig. 148) is the work of anonjinous Florentines. 
Donatello himself made the figure of St. John the Baptist 

Figure 148. — The Judgment of Solomon. 
Doge's Palace, Venice. 


in the Frari. Elsewhere in Venice — on the fa(;ade of St. 
Mark's, on the Ca d' Oro, in the Doge's Palace — Lombard 
sculptors were much employed. The chief of these were 
the Buon (or Bon) family, Bartolommeo, Giovanni, Paci- 
fico, and Pantaleone, 
whose works show the 
naturalism of the Re- 
naissance with the full 
forms and serious dignity 
of the earlier Venetian 
school. At the same 
time sculptors of the 
Paduan school worked 
in Venice, and their in- 
fluence was important. 

Rizzo. — Antonio 
Rizzo (1430-1499?), 
from Verona, went to 
Venice about 1464. In 
the tomb of Francesco 
Foscari, in the Frari, 
the figures are finely 
modelled, but the effect 
of the whole is mediaeval 
and not altogether har- 
monious. The tomb of 
Niccolo Tron (1473), 
with its nineteen large 
statues, numerous re- 
liefs, and ornamental 
detail, is a truly monu- 
mental work, though its 
parts lack cohesion (Fig. 
149). Some of the 

statues show the influence of the Paduan school. This 
is the first of the great tombs which are the most 
striking interior decoration of Venetian churches. The 
Adam and Eve on the Foscari monument in the court of 

FiauKE 149. 

- Tomb of Niccolo Tron. 


the Doge's Palace are somewhat earlier works by Rizzo. 
The records of his life are confused, and the ascription to 
him of many works is disputed ; but he was clearly an 
important factor in the progress of Renaissance architecture 
and sculpture in ^'enice, though not, apparently, an artist 
of great original genius. 

Pietro Lombardi and his Sons. — Pietro Solari {ca. 1435- 
1515), called Lombardi, was both architect and sculptor. 
In his large works he was usually assisted by his sons Antonio 
(d. 1516) and Tullio (d. 15.32). His signed statuettes of St. 
Jerome and St. Paul in S. Stefano are purely Lombard sculp- 
ture, in the style of the Mantegazza, and in general his Lom- 
bard origin shows clearly in his works, though modified by 
the Venetian lo\'e of beauty and fine execution. In the 
work of his sons the Lombard qualities are less marked. 
The monument of the Doge Xiccolo Marcello (d. 1474) 
resembles Rizzo's work very closely ; that of the Doge 
Pietro Mocenigo (d. 1476), with its figures in ancient cos- 
tume and reliefs in which ancient motifs are noticeable, 
shows the individual style of Pietro Lombardi. Several 
smaller monuments in Venice and neighboring places are 
ascribed to him. The greatest joint work of Pietro and his 
sons is the church of Sta. ^laria dei Miracoli in Venice (1481- 
1489), perhaps the finest example of Venetian decorative 
art. The monument of the Doge Andrea Vendramin (fin- 
ished 1494), by Tullio and Antonio (possibly collaborating 
with Leopardi) , is the most extensive and elaborate of Vene- 
tian tombs. The figure sculpture of the Lombardi does 
not equal in freedom or grandeur the masterpieces of Floren- 
tine art, but the decorative effect of their great composite 
works is so excellent that they naturally exerted a powerful 
and lasting influence upon Venetian sculpture. 

Leopardi. — AUessandro Leopardi (d. 1522) was chiefly 
architect and decorator. After Verrocchio's death, Leo- 
pardi, as a skilful bronze-caster, was employed to cast the 
equestrian statue of Colleoni. He also designed the pedestal 
with its frieze of weapons, which adds greatly to the effect 
of the monument. The bronze sockets of the flagstaffs 


in the Piazza di San Marco, admirable examples of decora- 
tion and casting, are also his work. 

Other Venetian Sculptors. — The number of works of sculp- 
ture of the last half of the fifteenth century in Venice and her 
subject towns is very great, and the sculptors must have been 
numerous. To some of them, such as Antonio Dentone, 
Camelio, Andrea Vicentino, and Pyrgoteles, definite works 
are ascribed with certainty, others are mere names, and many 
works are anonymous. In general, the school of Pietro 
Lombardi predominates. 

The Early Renaissance in Rome. Filarete. Simone Ghini. 
— In Rome the monuments of the early years of the fifteenth 
century — the tomb of Philippe d' Alen9on, the Caraffa 
tomb, the tomb of Cardinal Stefaneschi — are simple, digni- 
fied, and effective works, but mark the end of the Roman 
school of the Cosmati, not the beginning of the Renaissance, 
which was brought in some years later by Tuscan and Lom- 
bard artists. Donatello's brief sojourn in Rome (1432-1433) 
had no lasting influence. The Florentines Filarete (Antonio 
Averlino, ca. 1400-1469) and Simone Ghini (1407-after 
1480) were busy for some years in Rome. The chief work 
of the former is the bronze door of St. Peter's (1433-1445), 
which is elaborate and crowded with figures, but, in spite 
of its beautiful scrollwork, not by any means equal to Ghi- 
berti's doors in Florence. Ghini's bronze tomb of Pope 
Martin V (1433?) shows the influence of Donatello; it is a 
fine work, but is somewhat lacking in originality. 

Other Sculptors in Rome. — Isaia da Pisa is best known by 
the tomb of Pope Eugene IV (d. 1447), though several other 
tombs in Rome are his work. He was a mediocre sculptor, 
but helped to introduce the Renaissance into Rome. Paolo 
Taccone {ca. 1414 -ca. 1470), called Romano, worked at 
first with Isaia da Pisa, later with Mino da Fiesole and others. 
His figures show more study of antiquity than of nature. 
Giovanni Dalmata (ca. 1440-after 1509) is more vigorous 
and original. He worked in Rome for ten years (1470-1480), 
sometimes with Mino da Fiesole, whose name is connected 
with more works in Rome than that of any other sculptor 


of this period. Second only to IVIino in the number of his 
works, and often associated with him, is Andrea Bregno 
(1421-1506), whose slender figures with finely folded draper- 
ies betray his Lombard origin, though their dignified pose 
and lack of animation show the influence of ancient art. 
Another Lombard is Luigi Capponi, of Milan, who worked in 
Rome during the last decades of the fifteenth century. His 
works are distinguished by their finely wrought ornamenta- 
tion. Gian Cristoforo Romano (d. 1512), the son of Isaia 
da Pisa, worked chiefly in Lombardy and can hardly be 
classed as a Roman artist. Several other sculptors who 
worked in Rome are known by name and by isolated works. 

In general, the sculpture of the Early Renaissance in Rome 
was the work of artists from Tuscany and Lombardy, who 
worked much together, so that the same monument often 
exhibits the styles of several sculptors. Decorative effect, 
rather than progress in the art of sculpture, was here, as in 
Venice, the chief aim of the sculptors. Rome was an impor- 
tant centre of production, but not of original and progressive 

The Early Renaissance in SoutJiern Italy. — Somewhat 
the same condition existed in southern Italy, though here 
more of Byzantine tradition persisted than in Rome. Dona- 
tello, Michelozzo, Isaia da Pisa, Paolo Romano, Andrea 
d' Aquila (working 144(3-1458), Antonio Rossellino, Guido 
Mazzoni, Benedetto da Majano and his brother Giuliano, 
all worked at A'arious times in Naples. Sometimes, as in 
Rome, se\'eral sculptors joined in one wprk, with much the 
same general results. The two sculptors who may be called 
Neapolitans, Andrea Ciccione and Antonio di Domenico 
da Bamboccio, although they were active until about 1420, 
belong to the INIiddle Ages, not to the Renaissance. Fran- 
cesco Laurana (d. between 1500 and 1502), by birth a Yene- 
tian subject, since he was born in Dalmatia, worked chiefly 
at Naples, in Sicily, and in southern France. Some of his 
portraits of young women are charming in their modest 
simplicity, and his decorative work is excellent. The Lom- 
bard Domenico Gagini, who went from Genoa to Palermo in 


1463, retained the peculiarities of Lombard sculpture, 
though somewhat influenced by Laurana, and this influence 
is stronger in the works of his son Antonio Gagini (1478- 
1536), which are distinguished for beautiful forms, good 
technique, and pleasing expression, but not for deep feeling 
or great originality. 



Tendencies of the Sciilptnrc of the Developed Renaissance. — 
Before the end of the fifteenth century the formative period 
of Renaissance sculpture was over. The methods and motifs 
of decoration were established, technical processes had been 
learned, beauty of form had been attained by study of na- 
ture and of ancient art. Already in the works of some of 
the sculptors discussed in the previous chapter a lack of 
spontaneity, a tendency to repeat accepted formulas may be 
observed, and this tendency becomes characteristic of the 
Developed Renaissance. The beautiful low relief, which had 
been usual in the Early Renaissance, gives place to high re- 
lief, in which the figures appear almost as statues, and in 
general the statue becomes more important, sometimes 
taking such complete possession of large monuments as to 
reduce their architecture to insignificance. The direct and 
careful study of nature gives place to admiration of ancient 
art, which was known almost exclusively through Roman 
works or Roman copies of Greek originals. Care in model- 
ling, in selection of effective poses, in arrangement of drapery 
are evident, sometimes resulting in obvious straining for 
effect, sometimes in mere academic correctness. The only 
really great sculptor of the period is iMichael Angelo, though 
several others merit brief consideration. 

Andrea Sansovino. — Andrea Sansovino (Andrea Con- 
tucci dal INIonte Sansovino, 1460-1529) was, with the excep- 
tion of IMichael Angelo, the most adrnired sculptor of the 



period. In his earliest work, a terra-cotta altar at Monte 
Sansovino, his style resembles that of Giovanni della Robbia. 
Of his activity in Portugal, where he spent eight years 
(1491-1498) nothing is known, and several works produced 
soon after his return to Italy possess little merit. In 1502 
he began the group of the Baptism of Jesus over the 
baptistery door at Florence (finished long after by Vincenzo 
Danti), which is distinguished for depth of sentiment and 
beauty of form, though it lacks the perfect naturalism of the 
Early Renaissance and shows too clearly the influence of 
ancient art. The same defects are seen in his statues of the 
Madonna and St. John the Baptist in the baptistery at Genoa. 
From 1504 to 1513 he was in Rome, where he executed, in 
addition to minor works, a number of important tombs, the 
chief of which are those of the cardinals Ascanio Maria Sf'orza 
(1505) and Girolamo Basso (1507) in Sta. Maria del Popolo. 
In general design these follow the precedents of the fifteenth 
century. The decorative work and some of the figures are 
excellent, but the total efi^ect is not entirely harmonious. 
From 1514 to 1529 Sansovino was occupied with the sculp- 
tural adornment of the Santa Casa at Loreto. He is probably 
the author of the entire design, though many portions were 
executed by others, in part after his death. Here the 
statues are inspired by Michael Angelo's paintings, and the 
effect of the reliefs is injured by the excessive prominence of 
individual figures. Nevertheless, the work as a whole is 
beautiful and impressive. 

Michael Angela. Early Works. — Michael Angelo Buon- 
arroti (1475-1564) was born at Caprese, in the Casentino, 
of an ancient Florentine family. Though distinguished as 
architect and painter, he was primarily a sculptor. In his 
earliest works, the Battle of the Centaurs and the Madonna, 
now in the museum of the Casa Buonarroti, he follows in 
general the traditions of the school of Donatello, but in the 
type of face, the style of the drapery, and the remarkable 
treatment of the vigorous nude forms he already exhibits 
the distinguishing qualities of his own genius. In October, 
1494, at the approach of Charles VIII, he fled from Florence 



to Bologna, where he carved for the area of St. Domenic the 
St. Proculus (now lost), the kneeling angel, and the St. 
Petronius. These show the influence of Jacopo della Querela. 
The next spring he returned to Florence and in June, 1496, 
went to Rome. In the decade following his return from 

FiGCEE 150. — Piet^, by Michael Angelo. Rome. 

Bologna he produced a sleeping Cupid in ancient style (now 
lost), the youthful St. John in Berlin (for this is probably 
his), the Cupid in South Kensington, the Drimken Bacchus 
in the Bargello, the two iondi of the Virgin and Child, and 
several other works. The chief work of his first sojourn 


in Rome is the Pieta in St. Peter's (finished in 1499 ; Fig. 
150). Here the influence of Jacopo della Quercia is seen in 
the heavy folds of the draperies, that of the della Robbia 
in the face of the Madonna, 
that of ancient art in the nude 
figure of Jesus, but the wonder- 
ful portrayal of death and the 
mastery of anatomy in that 
figure, the power and harmony 
of the composition are the 
young sculptor's own. This is 
the greatest of his early works 
and one of the greatest of all 
groups of devotional sculpture. 
The small Madonna in Bruges 
resembles the Pieta in manner 
and is probably little later in 
date. But it is impossible to 
give here a complete list of the 
master's works. 

The David.— In 1501 Michael 
Angelo returned to Florence, 
where he remained until 1505. 
During this time he was con- 
stantly occupied with sculpture 
and painting, but the chief work 
of these years is the colossal 
David in the Accademia (Fig. 
151), in which the influence 
of Donatello is mingled with 
that of the Apollo of the Bel- 
vedere. The statue is not en- 
tirely satisfactory, for the co- 
lossal size harmonizes ill with 
the juvenile forms of the youthful David, nevertheless it is 
a remarkable work, and the head and face are powerful and 

FiGDRE 151. — David, by Michael 
Angelo. Florence. 


The Tomb of Julius II. 

In 1505 Michael Angelo was 



called to Rome to make a tomb for the reigning Pope, Julius 
II, which ^\'as to be a superb and elaborate work, but which 
was finished after forty years only in a much curtailed and 
very imperfect form. In January, 1506, the Laocoon group 
(see page 13-i) was found, and the " slaves " in the Louvre show 
how powerful and lasting was its effect upon Michael Angelo. 
In April, 1506, the sculptor, considering himself insulted by 
the Pope, fled to Florence. In November of the same 

year he met the Pope at 

Bologna and obtained 
his pardon together with 
a commission to make 
a colossal bronze statue 
of his Holiness, which 
was erected in 1508, but 
was taken down after 
four years by the Bo- 
lognese and melted to 
make a cannon (called 
the Giulia) with which 
to bombard the papal 
army. In March, 1508, 
Michael Angelo was 
called by the Pope from 
Florence to Rome and 
ordered to decorate with 
paintings the ceiling of 
the Sistine chapel; he 
was engaged in this 
work until September, 1512. Julius II died in 1513. His 
executors made a new contract with ^Michael Angelo, who 
worked on the tomb part of the time for three years ; 
but he was interrupted by other cares and projects. Pope 
Leo X ordered him to undertake great works — the facade of 
S. Lorenzo and the tombs of the Medici at Florence — and 
the tomb of Julius, as it was finally completed in 1545 in the 
church of S. Pietro in Vincoli bears little resemblance 
to the original plan. Only the colossal Moses (Fig. 152) and 

Figure 152.- 

- Moses, by ilichael Angelo. 


the figures of Leah and Rachel are by Michael Angelo ; the 
rest is the work of his pupils. The Moses is a wonderfully 
powerful and impressive figure, with mighty limbs, energetic 
attitude, and an expression of suppressed emotion. The 
"slaves" in the Louvre, four unfinished colossal statues in 
the Boboli gar- 
dens at Flor- 
ence, and per- 
haps the group 
of Victory in the 
Bargello, were 
originally in- 
tended for this 
monument and 
show what its 
variety, splen- 
dor, and power 
might have 

The Tombs of 
the Medici. — 
The second great 
monument — the 
tombs of the 
Medici in S. 
Lorenzo at Flor- 
ence — was 
planned in 1519, 
but not begun 
untill524. Only 

4. t iU ^,; FiGUBE 153. — Tomb of Giuliano dei Medici, by 

part or tne Orig- Michael Angelo. Florence. 

inal plan was 

carried out, and even this was not completely finished 
when Michael Angelo left Florence in 1534 never to re- 
turn. The chapel — of dignified, but somewhat cold and 
lifeless architecture — now contains the seated statues 
of the younger Lorenzo and the younger Giuliano de' 
Medici (Fig. 153), each in its niche; below them, on 


the sarcophagi, colossal statues of Day (male), and Night 
(female). Evening (male) and Dawn (female) ; and on a 
third wall the Madonna between Sts. Cosmas and Damian, 
the patron saints of the Medici. The two last-mentioned 
figures were executed by Montorsoli and Montelupo. The 
head of the Evening is not finished, and that of the Day is 
even less near completion. In the statues of Lorenzo and 
Giuliano the element of portraiture is almost entirely omitted ; 
but the contrast between the two is admirable, and the deeply 
thoughtful face of Lorenzo is wonderfully impressive. In 
the four tremendously powerful recumbent figures the 
sculptor seems to have embodied the sombre and passionate 
sadness which oppressed his spirit. The Dawn seems 
awakening to the woes, not the pleasures of life ; Day looks 
with angry, threatening glance over his shoulder; Evening 
turns wearily away from the world ; and Night sleeps with- 
out desire of waking.' 

Later Works. — While he was occupied with the tomb of 
the Medici and during all the later years of his life, Michael 
Angelo completed only one work of sculpture, the Christ 
in Sta. Maria sopra Minerva, in Rome, and even in this 
some details are by the hand of an assistant. In 1535 he 
was made by the Pope chief architect, painter, and sculptor 
of the Vatican, and in 1547 architect of St. Peter's. His 
Last Judgment, the most stupendous of paintings, which 
covers the end wall of the Sistine chapel, was finished in 
1541. In these last years, filled as they were with great 
interests and activities, he began several works of sculpture, 
but none of them was finished. Only the Pieta, now in the 
cathedral at Florence, approached completion, but this was 
broken by the sculptor, whether on account of defects in 
the marble or because he was not satisfied with his work. 
The fragments were collected by a Florentine sculptor, 
Tiberio Calcagni, who finished the group. The figure of 

' This is expressed by Michael Angelo in one of his sonnets : 

Care mi h '1 sonno e piu I'esser di sasso 
Mentre che '1 danno e la vergogna dura ; 
Non veder, non sentir, mi 6 gran ventnra. . . . 
Pero non mi destra, deh ! parla basso. 


the Magdalen, correct and insipid, is his work ; the rest of 
the group — the dead Christ, the Virgin, and Joseph of 
Arimathea — combines in the highest degree skill in composi- 
tion, beauty of line, anatomical correctness, and depth of 
sentiment. Even in its present condition it is a masterpiece. 

In originality, technical skill, dramatic power, and bold- 
ness Michael Angelo is a sculptor without parallel in the 
history of art. It is no wonder that his influence was supreme 
among his contemporaries and their successors. i 

Other Sculptors of the Developed Rejmissance. — The num- 
ber of sculptors of the sixteenth century is great, but few 
of them are really important. The Florentine Lorenzetto 
(Lorenzo di Ludovico, 1489-1541) executed, from designs 
by Raphael, the sculptural decoration of the Chigi chapel 
in Sta. Maria del Popolo in Rome. The statue of Jonah and 
the bronze relief of Jesus and the Woman of Samaria are 
admirable, but his later, independent works are of little 
interest. Several other Florentines may be mentioned. 
Andrea Ferrucci (1465-1526) was most successful in pic- 
turesque decorative work. Benedetto da Rovezzano (1476- 
1556), admirable in decoration and portraits, was inferior in 
figure sculpture; he was called to England to execute the 
monument of Cardinal Wolsey. Pietro Torrigiano (b. 
1472) is the artist of the fine monument of Henry VII in 
Westminster Abbey and of several other works in England. 
He went also to Spain, where his chief works are a St. Jerome 
and a Madonna in the museum at Seville. Francesco di 
Sangallo (1495-1570), best known as an architect, is less 
important as a sculptor, for his work lacks simplicity and 
directness. Giovanni Francesco Rustici (1474-1554) is 
known chiefly by the bronze group of the Preaching of St. 
John the Baptist, in the baptistery, and Baccio da Monte- 
lupo (1469-1535) by the statue of St. John the Evangelist, 
on Or San Michele. 

Gian Cristoforo Romano (ca. 1465-1512), the son of Isaiah 
da Pisa, retains much of the spirit of the Early Renaissance, 
and the same is true of Pietro Bariloto of Faenza (working 
ca. 1520-1545) and Gian Francesco da Grado (working about 


1525). Antonio Begarelli (ca. 1498-1565) modelled life- 
like figures, especially in groups, of colored terra-cotta, as 
did Alfonso Lombard! (1497-1537) in Bologna, whose reliefs 
in S. Petronio and on the base of the area of St. Domenic are 
tasteful and picturesque. The Florentine Tribolo (Niccolo 
Pericolo, 1485-1550), who worked on the fa9ade of S. Petronio 
with Alfonso Lombardi and later in the Santa Casa at Loreto, 
was a pupil of Jacopo Sansovino (Jacopo Tatti, 1486-1570), 
himself a pupil of Andrea Sansovino. Jacopo's early works 
in Florence are in the style of his master, and in Rome he was 
influenced by Michael Angelo ; his chief activity was, how- 
ever, in Venice, where his works are many and Various, show- 
ing the influence of Andrea Sansovino, ^Michael Angelo, 
the Paduan school of Donatello, and earlier Venetian sculp- 
ture. 'They are attractive and effective, for the most part, 
but not great. Raffaello da Montelupo (1505-1567), Fra 
Giovanni Angiolo della Porta (d. 1577 ; son of Guglielmo 
della Porta), and Baccio Bandinelli (1493-1560) were imi- 
tators of Michael Angelo. 

Benmnuto Cellini. — The famous goldsmith Benvenuto 
Cellini (1500-1572) shows in his larger works — the Perseus 
in the Loggia dei Lanzi, the crucifix in the Escorial, and 
portrait busts — and in his statuettes great care in execu- 
tion and serious study of nature. His figures have also an 
easy grace unusual at this period. The habits of the gold- 
smith influenced him in the execution of all his works, but 
that fact hardly detracts from their beauty. He is the most 
noted bronze worker of the Developed Renaissance. 

The Late Rexaissanxe 

Giovanni Bologna. — In the Late Renaissance the most 
prominent sculptor in Italy is the French Fleming Jean 
Boulogne (called Giovanni Bologna, 1529-1608), who re- 
ceived his education as a sculptor at Antwerp and settled 
in Florence in 1563. His most popular work, the Flying 
Mercury in the Bargello (ca. 1566), is much admired for the 
boldness of its graceful pose. The marble groups of the Rape 


of the Sabine Women (1581-1583; Fig. 154) and Hercules 
and Nessus (1599) in the Loggia dei Lanzi are beautiful, 
animated, and bold in composition, though the forms of the 
figures are hardly superior to those produced by other sculp- 
tors of the time. The equestrian 
statue of Cosimo I (set up in 
1594), in the street close by, is 
noble and serious. But his great- 
est successes are his fountains 
— the Fountain of Neptune in 
Bologna (1563-1567) and two 
fountains in the Boboli gardens 
in Florence (1576 and 1585). 
Each of these is a masterpiece in 
general design, beauty of indi- 
vidual figures, and skilful use of 
decorative forms. His works are 
numerous, and their popularity 
was increased by the fact that 
many small copies of them were 
made by the sculptor himself, 
or, at least, in his atelier. These 
small bronzes were then, as now, 
much prized by collectors. The 
influence of Giovanni Bologna 
was great and was not confined 
to his immediate pupils, but it 
was not sufficient to keep Italian 
sculpture from the faults of the 
baroque style, to which, indeed, 
his art is not altogether opposed. 
Other Sculptors of the Late 
Renaissance. — Several other 
sculptors from the Netherlands were in Italy for a time, 
among them Elia Candido, his son Peter Candid, and A. de 
Vries. Pietro FrancanOla (1548-1618), from Cambrai, 
was a pupil of Giovanni Bologna, as was also the Italian 
Pietro Tacca (d. ca. 1650), whose equestrian statue of Philip 



^^^C^Vrl^^^ ^^H 


WMi^ ^k 


^^Vr ' ' ■ 


^^^^^^F Jr^^i^ h' 

^s'''"^- ^^^^^1 












mmm, \ 





^^HfelitM-^tr^ .^MMWi^JM 


^■^.- .■-M-^ 


U'.. ^\^ 

' ^B 

Figure 154. — The Rape of 
the Sabines, by Giovanni Bo- 
logna. Florence. 


IV, at Madrid, is especially famous ; much of his decorative 
work is tasteful and original. 

Jacopo Sansovino had many pupils, most of whom fol- 
lowed the style of their master pretty closely. Chief among 
these were Alessandro Vittoria (1525-1608), from Trient, 
Girolamo Campagna (working 1542), from Verona, and 
Danese Cattaneo (1509-1573), of Carrara, all of whom have 
left many works, chiefly in \'enice. The architect Bartol- 
ommeo Ammanati (1511-1592) was a pupil of Jacopo San- 
sovino, but had studied previously under Bandinelli, whose 
influence shows in his work. VLncenzo Danti (1530-1576) 
shows, as do all his contemporaries, the influence of Michael 
Angelo, but is not without originality. 

The Barouue 

Qualities of the A rt of the Seventeenth Century. — The archi- 
tecture and sculpture of the seventeenth century go by the 
name of Baroque, as the great art of the Middle Ages is called 
Gothic, and both names were first applied as terms of derision 
by those who had ceased to understand the art which they 
decried. In the seventeenth century magnificence and splen- 
dor were the externals of greatness and were desired by all. 
Buildings were covered inside and outside with elaborate 
decorations of stone or stucco, and the chief occupation of 
sculptors, apart from portraits, was in the creation of such 
decorations, among which immense and gorgeous tombs 
are to be reckoned. Gardens and public places were adorned 
with fountains of elaborate design, some of which are among 
the most brilliant productions of the period. And men were 
thinking high thoughts. Science, religion, and philosophy, 
statecraft, national, dynastic, and political aspirations were 
deeply pondered. Allegories which now seem overfanciful 
and incomprehensible were admired and understood. Under 
such conditions it is natural that scidptiu-e lost its simplicity, 
that attitudes in statues and reliefs show violent motions, 
that draperies float wildly, that the forms of men are over- 
muscular and those of women too voluptuous. Such sculp- 


ture was not insincere ; it was the proper expression of the 
spirit of the time. 

Bernini. — The sculptor whose genius dominated the cen- 
tury was Gian Lorenzo Bernini (1598-1680). His father, 
Pietro, was a Florentine sculptor; his mother was a Nea- 
politan, and Lorenzo passed 
the first six years of his life 
at Naples. Then the family 
moved to Rome. When he 
was but fourteen or fifteen 
years old, Lorenzo made two 
busts, of Bishop Santoni and 
Monsignor ]\Iontoya, the 
first of a long series of re- 
markable portraits. His 
other works are groups repre- 
senting ancient myths or 
stories, religious sculptures 
of mystical intensitj^, and 
fountains. He was also 
author, painter, draughts- 
man, and architect. The 
mythological works are 
Aeneas and Anchises, the 
Rape of Proserpine, and 
Apollo and Daphne, to which 
his David may be added. 
In all of these he shows the 
most consummate technique 
(though they are early 
works), and the forms he 
produced are of exquisite beauty. Here is, to be sure, 
nothing of the calm and restraint which we generally asso- 
ciate with statuary, but neither is there anything unnatural 
or theatrical (Fig. 155). In his ecclesiastical sculpture 
Bernini was vastly prolific and original. His angels float- 
ing on clouds above the papal throne in St. Peter's are only 
the most familiar examples of the angel figures in which he 

Figure 155. — Apollo and Daphne, 
by Bernini. Rome. 


excelled. His saints are inspired with mystic, passionate 
holiness. His tombs of Urban VHI and Alexander VII are 
dramatic and superb, with their living portrait statues and 
allegorical figures. In his earlier works, exen in the Saint 
Bibiena (1626), there is a trace of classic influence, but this 
soon disappears, and the exuberance of his fancy expresses 
itself unhampered in free, unrestrained motions, intense or 
exalted expressions of face, and copious, fluttering draperies. 
Algardi and Others. The Rococo. — Bernini's chief rival, 
if rival he can be called, was Alessandro Algardi (1.598-1654), 
from Bologna, whose works exhibit greater care for natural- 
istic detail and less decorative instinct than those of Bernini, 
though their general qualities are similar. Rome was at 
this time full of sculptors, and the baroque style was carried 
to other parts of Italy, to France, and to Germany, where it 
floiu-ished abundantly. A list of the Italian sculptors of 
this time woidd be very long, for sculpture was never more 
popidar than at this period. It was for the most part decora- 
tive work, in connection with architecture, and much of it 
was carried out in stucco, e^en on the exteriors of buildings. 
Some of the names are : Stefano Maderna, Antonio Raggi, 
Ercole Ferrata, Francesco Baratta, !Mattia Rossi, Paolo 
Xaldini, Giacomo Serpotta, Antonio Calegari, and the 
Fleming Frans Duquesnoy at Rome, Sammartino, Corradini, 
and Queirolo at Naples, Giovanni Battista Foggini at Flor- 
ence, and Pietro Baratta at Venice. These men, and many 
others, were extremely skilful, and it is hardly just to call 
them mere imitators of Bernini. Their work, seen in its 
proper siuroundings, is sometimes effective, even brilliant, 
as architectural decoration, but none of them possessed the 
genius of Bernini, with whose work they were obliged to 
compete. Inferior sculptors who worked in the baroque 
style easily transformed its exuberance and emotionalism 
into caricatm-e. In the eighteenth century- the ^^go^ous 
and emphatic qualities of the baroque were transformed into 
lightness and grace, the Rococo style, as it is called, just as 
in France the magnificent style of Loms XIV passed into 
the more playful and airy style of Louis X\'. 



Tendency of French Sculpture in the Fifteenth Century. — 
French sculpture of the second half of the fifteenth century 
is characterized by pleasant realism, observation of nature, 
simplicity of pose and action, and (in many cases) intense 
religious feeling, for art was still chiefly religious. The forms 
of angels were popular and are often of great beauty, with a 
more familiar and human beauty than is found in the angels 
of the thirteenth century. Saints, too, are portrayed in a 
more realistic manner. Saint Joseph is a French carpenter, 
Saints Cosmas and Damian are French physicians, Saint 
George is a knight armed as for a tourney, and the faces, as 
well as the costumes and attitudes, are such as the sculptor 
saw constantly about him. The arrangement of figures 
on or in the churches was no longer determined by a learned 
and elaborate system, but by the wishes or caprices of 
individuals. Side by side with familiar realism, joined with 
it, in fact, was a spirit of mysticism and devotion. The 
scenes of grief and sorrow which followed the crucifixion — 
the pieta and tlie entombment — were carved in countless 
repetitions. Even now, though many have disappeared, these 
groups are counted by hundreds. In date and style they 
vary greatly, and it is difficult to classify them in local schools. 
A chronological development may be traced in details of or- 
namentation, in growth of demonstrative gesticulation and 
dramatic, even affected, attitudes, and finally in the loss of 
individuality in the faces, coupled with conventional regular- 
ity of feature. In these changes the influence of Italian art 
is seen, but they are chiefly noticeable in the sixteenth cen- 



lialiaiis in France. — In the fifteenth century the influence 
of ItaHan art was sHght. Laurana and Pietro da Milano 
were in Provence, at the court of King Rene, from 1461 to 
1466, but their works of this period were few (largely medals) 
and seem to have exerted little or no influence. Laurana 
returned to France about 1475 and remained until his death 
in 1483. Charles VIII brought back from Italy, in 1496, 
not only works of art, but also artists, among them Guido 
Mazzoni, who made the elaborate tomb of the king, formerly 
at St. Denis,^ and from this time on Italian sculpture exerts 
great influence in France, as Italian architectm-e supplants 
the late or flamboyant Gothic. 

Michel Colovibe. — The most representative French sculp- 
tor of the latter part of the fifteenth and the first part of the 
sixteenth century is Michel Colombe {ca. 14.30-1512), the 
chief of the " School of Tours." Of his early life and works 
nothing is known. He seems to have been at Bourges in 
1467 and to have had already a great reputation, but definite 
information begins in 1473, when he was settled at Tours. 
His greatest extant work, the momunent of Francois II, 
duke of Brittany, and his wife IMarguerite de Foix (1502- 
1507), is in the cathedral at Nantes. The general design and 
the architectiue (in the style of the Renaissance) are by the 
architect and painter Jean Perreal ; the recvunbent effigies, 
the statues of Justice, Temperance, Prudence, and Strength, 
three angels, the smaller figm-es of the twelve Apostles, Saints 
Charlemagne, Louis, Francis of Assisi, and ^Margaret, and of 
monks and priests are by Michel Colombe. They are all 
natural, lifelike, and graceful, not inferior to corresponding 
works by the best Italian sculptors of the time, but appar- 
ently little, if at all, affected by Italian art. The style of 
IMichel Colombe may be judged by the relief of St. George 
and the dragon in the Lou^tc which was carved about 1508 
for the high altar of the chateau de Gaillon (Fig. 156) . These 
are the only existing works which are certainly by the hand of 
Michel Colombe. If the "Vierge d'Olivet" in the Louvre 
and the Entombment at Solesmes are his work, which is 

' Several other important works in France are ascribed to Mazzoni. 


not unlikely, they probably belong to a somewhat earlier 

The School of Tours. — In his work for the tomb of Fran- 
cois II and Marguerite de Foix, Michel Colombe was assisted 
by his pupils Guillaume Regnault {ca. 1451-ca. 1533) and 
Jean de Chartres ; he employed also, for the ornamentation, 
two Italians, one of whom, Girolamo da Fiesole, aided him 
on other occasions. The exquisite monument of Louis Pon- 

FiGURE 156. — St. George and the Dragon, by Michel Colombe. The 
Louvre, Paris. 

cher and his wife Roberte Legendre, now in the Louvre, is 
by Regnault and Guillaume Chaleveau. Several other 
works, among them the fine tomb of the Bastarnay, at 
Montresor, are properly attributed to the school of Tours, 
which combined naturalistic French sculpture with Italian 
decorative and architectural forms. 

Local Schools. Various Sculptors. — The influence of 
the school of Tours was widespread, and the same conditions 
which, apart from his own genius, produced the art of Michel 
Colombe existed also in other parts of France. There are 


works of sculpture in many places which exhibit the quaHties 
of the school of Tours mingled with those of the "Biirgun- 
dian" and other schools. In Normandy, where Italian 
influence was especially strong at Gaillon, there was much 
activity among sculptors, but progress was, on the whole, 
along French, not Italian, lines. At Rouen, Pierre des 
Aubeaulx carved the "Tree of Jesse" in the tj-mpanum of the 
central door (begun in 1.573) and, with the aid of Pierre Doulis, 
Jean Theroulde, Richard le Roux, Nicholas Quesnel, and 
Denis le Rebours, a host of statues and statuettes on the 
facade of the cathedral. 

The tomb of the Cardinals of Amboise, in the cathedral of 
Rouen, begun in 1515, was designed by Roulland le Roilx, 
but the chief sculptor was Pierre des Aubeaulx, who was 
assisted by several other French and Flemish sculptors and, 
for the ornamental work, by Italians who came from Gaillon. 
The elaborate tomb combines Italian ornamentation with the 
styles of Normandy and the school of Tours. At the same 
time a school of sculpture floiu-ished in Champagne, in which 
the chief qualities are moderation, delicacy rather than vigor, 
and a certain pleasing refinement. Several artists of this 
school are kno\^ai by name, — Jacques Bachot, Jean Gailde, 
Nicolas Haslin, — but it is difficult to distinguish between 

Italian Influence. — Italian influence becomes predomi- 
nant in France under the patronage of Fran9ois I (1515- 
1547). Even earlier, in 1502, Louis XII engaged Italian 
sculptors (two Lombards, Michele d' Aria and Girolamo 
Viscardo, and two Florentines, Benedetto da Rovezzano 
and Donato di Battista di Mateo Benti) to make the tomb 
of his grandparents, his father, and his uncle, which is now at 
St. Denis ; Lorenzo di Mugiano, of Milan, made a statue of 
Louis XII for Gaillon, Antonio della Porta, called Tomag- 
nino, made the tomb of Raoul de Lannoy. The brothers 
kno^Ti as Jean and Antoine Juste, of Tours, were Florentines 
(Antonio di Giusto Betti, 1479-1519 ; Giovanni di Giusto 
Betti, 1485-1549), naturalized in 1515. Juste de Juste, 
son of Antoine, and Jean II, son of Juste de Juste, were also 


sculptors. The most important of the family is Jean Juste 
the elder. The monument of the Bishop of Dol {ca. 1504), 
by Jean, is purely Italian, but in the later works of Jean and 
Antoine — the tomb of Louis XII and Anne of Brittany at 
St. Denis, and those of Artus Gouffier and Philippe de Mont- 
morency, at Oiron — the influence of Michel Colombe is 
visible. Other Italian sculptors were doubtless established 
in France under Louis XII, but under Franfois I a greater 
number came, first to decorate the chateaux, such as Fontaine- 
bleau, Blois, Chambord, St. Germain, Madrid, then to extend 
the Italian style to private houses, public buildings, and 
churches in nearly all the larger cities. Among them were 
Girolamo della Robbia, Lorenzo Naldini (Laurent Renau- 
din), Francesco Primadizzi or Primaticcio (Le Primatice), 
Benvenuto Cellini, and Domenico del Barbiere of Florence 
(Domenique Florentin). Their works were many, and their 
influence grew until the Italian style became the prevailing 
style in France. 

Survival of French Style. Ligier Richier. — Nevertheless, 
especially in the North, sculpture of really French style con- 
tinued in vogue. The parts of the choir screen at Amiens 
carved in 1531, of exquisite workmanship and charming pic- 
turesque design, are still "Gothic" in decoration and style 
of sculpture, as are, with gradual changes in style, the parts 
of the beautiful choir screens at Chartres which were carved 
between 1514 and 1542 ^ (Fig. 157) ; so also are the historical 
reliefs of the Bourgtheroulde, at Rouen, and many other 
examples might be cited. Ligier Richier, the most noted 
sculptor of the school of Lorraine, was born at Saint-Mihiel 
in 1500 and died at Geneva in 1567. His style was much 
affected by Italian art, especially that of Guido Mazzoni, 
but retained also much of the spirit of French art of the 
fifteenth century. His works, almost all of which depict 
scenes of sorrow or death, show sentiment and realism, with 

• These were under the direction of Jean Texier (d. 1529). Parts were 
carved by Jean Soulas (1519-1525), by his pupils (1530-1640), and by 
Francois Marchand (1542). The names are known of a considerable num- 
ber of French sculptors of the sixteenth century whose style was but slightly 
affected by Italian art. 



fine dramatic instinct and careful execution. The best 
known among them is his latest, the Entombment at Saint- 
Mihiel, begun in 1553 (Fig. 158). His earliest known work, 
the retable at Hattonchatel, includes the same subject, with 
the Bearing of the Cross and the Crucifixion. Francois 
Gentil {ca. 1510-158S), of Troyes, and Nicholas Bachelier 
(148.5-1572), of Toulouse, are the chief representatives of 

Figure 157. 

-Death and Funeral of the Virgin; Choir screen, Cathedral 
ot Chartres. 

their respective schools, in which something of the mediaeval 
spirit still remains. 

Pierre Bontemps. — Pierre Bontemps (working 1536- 
1562) was one of the great sculptors of his time. He collabo- 
rated with several others, among them Germain Pilon, in 
making the statues and reliefs of the tomb of Fran9ois I at 
St. Denis, begun in 1548. The general classic (that is. Re- 
naissance) design of the monument is due to Philibert de 


rOrme, but documents prove that most of the sculpture is by 
Bontemps. He was evidently acquainted with the works 
of ancient art brought from Italy by Primaticcio, but in the 
statues and reliefs of this tomb he shows himself thoroughly 
French, not in any way an imitator of the Italian style. 
The exquisite decoration of the urn for the heart of Francois 
I, in the abbey church of Haute Bruyeres, is also compara- 
tively free from Italian influence. 

Figure 158. — The Entombment, by Ligier Richier. Saint-Mihiel. 

Jean Goujon. — Jean Goujon, the great artist of the new 
style, appears first at Rouen in 1540 and died at Bologna be- 
tween 1564 and 1568. At Rouen he made two columns of 
black marble and alabaster which support part of the organ 
in the church of St. Maclou.^ He probably worked on the 
tomb of the Amboise in the cathedral of Rouen, and perhaps 
on the tomb of Louis de Breze. He went to Paris in 1541, 
where he carved part of the rood screen of Saint Germain 

' The attribution of any parts of the doors of St. Maclou to Goujon is 
extremely doubtful. 



Figure 159. — Xymph, by 
Jean Goujon. Fountain of the 
Innocents, Paris. 

I'Auxerrois, one slab of which, 
(the Entombment) is now in the 
Louvre. The altar with Abra- 
ham's Sacrifice, now at Chantilly, 
and several other reliefs date 
from the years 1545 and 1546. 
His most famous work, the Foun- 
tain of the Innocents (Fig. 159), 
in Paris, is a few years later. 
The Diana with the Stag, which 
is without doubt his work, though 
no document attests the fact, was 
probably executed between 1550 
and 1553 ; the Caryatides in the 
Louvre and several reliefs for the 
same building are works of the 
next years. With the exceptions 
of the Diana and the Caryatides, 
his works are all in low relief, ex- 
quisitely carved. Their chief 
qualities are grace, charm, and 
delicate sentiment, rather than 
^•igor or dramatic power. The 
influence of the Italian art of the 
Early Renaissance is evident, but 
the individual genius of the artist 
is no less apparent. 

Germain Pilon. — Germain 
Pilon (1535-1590) was engaged in 
1558 to furnish sixteen figures for 
the tomb of Franfois I, but these 
were never put in place ; some 
of them may have been used for 
the tomb of Henri II. In his 
early works he follows the style 
of Bontemps, who may have been 
his teacher, though the Three 
Graces, made in 1561 to support 


the urn for the heart of Henri II are entirely in the Italian 
style. Thetombof Henri II and Catharine desMedicis (1565- 
1570) is essentially the work of Primaticcio and Germain Pilon. 
The semi-nude effigies (Fig. 160) and the praying figures of the 
king and queen are by Pilon, the four Virtues at the corners 
by Primaticcio. Here Pilon exhibits his remarkable deli- 
cacy in execution, his knowledge of anatomy, and his ability 
to depict emotion. The same qualities characterize his other 
works. The kneeling figure from the tomb of the chancellor 
Rene de Birague, now in the Lou^Te, is a masterpiece of por- 
traiture. Bontemps, Goujon, and Pilon are the great French 

Figure 160. 

-Tomb of Henry II and Catharine des Me 
Pilon. St. Denis. 

iicis, by Gcrni;dn 

sculptors of the sixteenth century, through whom the 
Renaissance took possession of French sculpture. 

Other Sculptors of the French Renaissance. — Other sculp- 
tors of some importance, whose lives extended into the seven- 
teenth century, are Barthelemy Prieur (b. 1.540-1550, d. 1611), 
the best of Pilon's pupils, Pierre Briard (1559-1609),^ Guil- 
laume Berthelot (b. 1570-1580, d. 1648), Simon Guillain 
(1581 ?-1658), Jacques Sarrazin (1558 ?-1660). Gilles Guerin 
(1606-1678) and the brothers Francois (1604?-1669) and 
Michel (1612-1686) Anguiers lived entirely in the seventeenth 
century. The works of all these belong, of course, to the 

■ His son, Pierre Briard the younger (.ca. 1590-1661), was also a sculptor, 
but of less note. 



Renaissance. Many of them are beautiful, and some por- 
traits among them are admirable; but these sculptors, 
whatever the merits of their works, mark no new epoch 
and effect little or no real progress. 

Sculpture under Lo\ds XIV. — A new epoch begins with the 
assumption of full regal power by Louis XR', in 1661. This 
was a period of great external prosperity and great ostentation. 
Splendor and magnificence were sought in architecture, 
painting, sculpture, and dress. The chief themesof sculp- 
ture were portraits, tombs, and mj-thological subjects. In 

Figure 161. — Nymphs Bathing, by Girardon. Versailles. 

the earlier works something of classical restraint is still pres- 
ent, but as time goes on sculpture becomes more sensational. 
The foreign influences which most affected French sculpture 
at this time proceeded from INIichael Angelo and Bernini. 
The chief French sculptors were Francois Girardon (1628- 
1715) of Troyes, Antoine Coysevox (1640-1720) of Lyons, 
and Pierre Puget (1622-1694) of Marseilles. 

Girardon. Le Lorrain. — Girardon's reliefs at Versailles, 
especially the Bathing N\Tnphs (Fig. 161), show a fine 
sense of form and great skill in composition, with a feeling for 
classic grace. His tomb of Cardinal Richelieu, in the Sor- 


bonne, is somewhat pompous and theatrical, but is impres- 
sive and admirably executed. Though the general design 
may be by Le Brun, the modelling and workmanship show the 
exceptional ability of the sculptor. In the Rape of Proser- 
pine, at Versailles, the influence of Bernini is evident. Many 
sculptors worked with Girardon at Versailles, where the pro- 
ductions of his school may best be studied. The chief of his 
pupils was Robert le Lorrain (1666-1743), whose most re- 
markable work is the Horses of the Sun, a wonderfully spir- 
ited relief over a doorway of the Hotel de Rohan (now the 
Imprimerie nationale), in Paris. 

Coysevox. — Coysevox was a versatile, original, and pro- 
ductive artist. Much of the ornate and magnificent sculp- 
ture at Versailles is his work. His portrait busts, such as 
those of himself, of Le Brun, of Louis XIV, of the Prince of 
Conde, are admirably characteristic, lifelike, and dignified. 
The full-length portrait of Marie Adelaide of Savoy in the 
Guise of Diana is a skilfully designed and charming statue. 
The statues of Fame and Mercury on winged horses, which 
decorate the entrance from the Place de la Concorde to the 
Garden of the Tuileries, are spirited and vigorous. The 
works of Coysevox's later years are chiefly monumental 
tombs, the best known of which is the tomb of Mazarin, in 
the Institut de France. 

Puget. — Puget, older than Girardon, was somewhat slow 
in making a name for himself. At the age of seventeen he 
w;ent to Italy, but returned to Marseilles in 1643. Soon he 
was again in Italy, but in 1653 was once more in Marseilles. 
His Caryatides at the Hotel de Ville of Toulon, in which he 
exaggerates the manner of Michael Angelo, date from this 
period. From 1661 to 1669 he was at Genoa, where are 
several statues from his hand. The works by which he is 
chiefly known are the Milo of Croton, Perseus delivering 
Andromeda, and the relief of Diogenes and Alexander, all now 
in the Louvre. In these he exhibits masterly technique, 
great knowledge of anatomy, and ability to represent emo- 
tion, but his desire to show his own ability is too evident. 
The life and energy portrayed seem artificial and exaggerated. 



The Coustou. — Nicholas (1658-1733) and Guillaume 
(1678-174:6) Coustou were the chief pupils of Coysevox. 
Their works are both graceful and spirited. The horses 
(chevaux de ^Nlarly) at the entrance to the Champs Elysees, 
by Guillaume, are full of life and spirit, and the group of 

the Rhone and Saone, by 
Nicholas, in the Garden of the 
Tuileries, is an admirable com- 
position. The taste of the age 
is seen in the portrait statue 
of Marie Leczinska, by Guil- 
laume (Fig. 1 62 ) . Guillaume's 
son Guillaume (1716-1777) is 
best known by his tomb of the 
Dauphin, at Sens, in which 
classical traditions. Christian 
faith, and human sentiment 
are mingled in somewhat 
theatrical fashion. He be- 
longs entirely to the eight- 
eenth century. 

Art under Louis AT. — Art 
under Louis XIY aimed at 
grandeur and magnificence ; 
under Louis XV (1774-1792) 
its aim was rather grace and 
charm. Sculpture was popu- 
lar, and the number of sculp- 
tors was great, but many of 
their works were destroyed 
during the Revolution. 
Bouchardon. — Edme Bouchardon (1698-1762) was a pupil 
of Guillaume Coustou and was in Italy from 1722 to 1732, 
when he returned to France and was made sculpteur ordinaire 
of Louis XY. His chief remaining works are the fountain in 
the rue de Crenelle Saint-Germain and Cupid bending a bow 
which he forces from the club of Hercules. In the latter a 
fanciful subject is lightly and gracefully treated. On the 

FiGrrRE 162. — Marie Leczin- 
ska, by Guillaume Coustou. The 
Lou^Te, Paris. 


fountain are statues of Paris, seated with the rivers Marne 
and Seine reclining at her feet ; two niches contain statues of 
Seasons, and beneath the niches are charming rehefs of chil- 
dren playfully engaged in the labors of the seasons. 

Lemoyne. — ^ Jean . Baptiste Lemoyne (1704-1788) was a 
pupil of Robert le Lorrain. His chief works were bronze 
statues of Louis XV, which have been destroyed, but many 
excellent busts remain, by means of which his ability in por- 
traiture and the delicacy of his style may be appreciated. 
Among his numerous pupils were Pigalle, Falconet, Caffieri, 
and Pajou. 

Slodts. AUegrain. — Michel Slodtz (1705-1764) was the 
son of Sebastian Slodtz, who came from Antwerp to Paris 
and studied under Girardon. Michel received the prix de 
Rome in 1730 and remained in Italy until 1747. His most 
noted work of this period is the St. Bruno in St. Peter's. In 
the tomb of the Abbe Lanquet de Gerzy, in St. Sulpice, Paris 
(1750), he introduced Death as a skeleton taking part in the 
action represented. Gabriel Christophe AUegrain (1710- 
1795) was much admired by Diderot for the classic grace of 
his statues, but the works by which he is chiefly known — ■ 
"Diana surprised by Actaeon" and a "Girl bathing" — are 
not the works of a great artist. 

Pigalle. Falconet. — Jean Baptiste Pigalle (1714-1785), 
a pupil of Robert le Lorrain and Lemoyne, was a sculptor of 
greater originality and power. His " Mercury fastening his 
Wings to his Feet " is graceful and full of life. He executed 
a number of monumental tombs which are admirably done, 
but too elaborate and eccentric in composition to suit modern 
taste; they appealed, however, to the taste of the time. The 
most noted of these is the monument to Maurice of Saxony, 
in Strassburg. Maurice Etienne Falconet (1716-1781) 
was a pupil of Lemoyne. Like AUegrain he admired and, 
in some degree, imitated ancient art. His " Nymph entering 
the Bath " (in the Louvre) is a graceful, pleasing study of the 
nude, and his great bronze equestrian statue of Peter the 
Great, in Petrograd, is a really powerful and impressive 


Caffieri. Pajou. Clodion. — Jean Jacques CafEeri (1725- 
1792) is the most celebrated of a family of artists. His 
father, Jacques (1678-1755) and his grandfather, Philippe 
(1634-1716), who came from Italy to Paris, were sculptors 
of some ability. Jean Jacques devoted himself chiefly to 
portrait busts, a branch of sculpture in which he has been 
surpassed by few. Seven of his busts are in the museum of 
the Comedie Fran^aise. Augustin Pajou (1730-1809) ex- 
celled in soft and graceful forms, usually nude or only 
partly draped. Neither entirely natural nor purely classic, 
his statues, like the paintings of his contemporary Boucher, 
are elegant and decorative. The bust of IMadame du Barry, 
the statue of Psyche, and the statue of JNIarie Leczinska as 
Charity, all in the Louvre, are good examples of his work. 
Louis Michel Claude (1738-1814), called Clodion, though he 
produced a few large and serious works, is known chiefly for 
elegant and plaj-ful reliefs and statuettes of nj-mphs, satyrs, 
cupids, and children. These works are chiefly of terra-cotta, 
plaster, or porcelain. They are fanciful, graceful, and attrac- 

Houdon. Other Scidptors of the Eighteenth Century. — The 
greatest French sculptor of the eighteenth century was Jean 
Antoine Houdon (1744-1828), a pupil of LemojTie, Michel 
Slodtz, and Pigalle, who devoted himself chiefly to por- 
traiture, though his graceful and airy Diana in the Hermitage 
(and also in the Louvre) shows that he could excel also in 
ideal sculpture. He gained the prix de Rome when but 
twenty years old, and spent ten years in Rome. His most 
famous work of this period is the St. Bruno in Sta. !Maria 
degli Angeli, a strikingly realistic figure of an earnest, inspired 
monk. His statues of Voltaire and Rousseau, and his very 
numerous busts, among which are those of Voltaire, Franklin, 
Washington, Moliere, Mirabeau, Diderot, and Buffon, are 
extremely naturalistic and make the character of the sitter 
express itself in the face more clearly than is often the case in 
nature. Houdon lived through the Revolution and the 
Empire, but most of his work was done under the old regime, 
to which he belonged in spirit, in spite of the naturalism of his 


works. Many other French sculptors were active in the 
eighteenth century, among them Pierre JuHen (1731-1804), 
Adam (the uncle of Clodion), Vasse (1716-1772), Boizot, 
Roland, and Edme Dumont. Their works exhibit the quali- 
ties peculiar to the period, but are neither so numerous nor, 
as a rule, so characteristic as those of the greater artists. 


Xaturalism in the Fifteenth Century. — In Germany, as in 
France, the sculpture of the second half of the fifteenth 
century differed from that of the earlier years by a greater 
naturalism, which was not, as in Italy, coupled with the 
study of ancient art. In Germany ancient art, and Italian 
art which was influenced by the study of antiquity, had less 
influence than in France. Nature was studied directly. 
Sculpture now freed itself from architecture to a great ex- 
tent, and even those sculptm-es which were made, as most 
were, for churches were designed with little or no regard for 
their architectiu^al setting. The Germans naturally seldom 
saw human beings nude, and therefore the heads, hands, 
feet, and draperies were modelled without much attention to 
the body. Sentiment was still of more importance than 
beauty of form, and is often expressed with much grace and 
charm. ^Madonnas and scenes from the childhood of Jesus 
or of INIary were fa\"orite subjects. The most successful 
figures are those of women or of such men, as, for instance, 
St. John the Evangelist, who could be represented with 
something of feminine grace. As before, sculpture was 
painted and gilded. Portraits were often introduced in 
scriptural scenes by German sculptors, as by Italian painters. 
There were many sculptors and many schools, which may 
be divided into two groups, the Northern and the Southern. 
Of these the Southern group, the chief seats of which were in 
Franconia, is the more important. The centres of the 
Northern group are on the^lower Rhine. 

School of Nuremberg. — In Franconia the most important 
school is that of Nuremberg. Here Adam Kxaft worked in 



stone, Veit Stoss almost exclusively in wood, and Peter Vischer 
in bronze. Each of these had his helpers, and there were 
many other sculptors in Nuremberg. The works of this 
school are many, and dated examples are not few. In the 
ateliers of some painters (e.g. Michael Wohlgemuth) works 
of sculpture were undertaken but, owing to the close guild 
system, artists confined themselves to one kind of work and 
were not, as in Italy, painters, sculptors, and architects in 
one person./ So the works of sculpture ascribed to Wohlge- 
muth were probably made from his designs by sculptors in 
his employ, not actually carved or modelled by himself. The 
Deposition in the Kreuzkapelle at Nuremberg is probably 
the best known of these works. Albrecht Diirer also made 
designs for sculpture to be executed by others. 

Veit Stoss. — Veit Stoss (1438 ?-1533) was born at Nurem- 
berg, spent the years 1477-1486 and 1489-1496 at Cracow, 
and the rest of his life in his native city. His earliest attested 
work is the altar-screen (Marienaltar) at Cracow, which was 
probably begun in 1477 or soon after. The central panel 
represents the death of the Virgin, with figures of more than 
life size, and above this the Virgin received into Heaven by 
her Son. Below, in the predella, is the Tree of Jesse. In 
the wings are eighteen scenes of the lives of Mary and Jesus. 
The. work is characterized by dramatic attitudes, expressive 
faces, and voluminous draperies deeply undercut. The work 
by which the sculptor is best known is the Annunciation (der 
englische Gruss) in the Lorenzkirche at Nuremberg. Here 
the Virgin and the Angel stand in a carved wreath of roses, 
on which are medallions of scenes from the life of the Virgin. 
The chief figures are more graceful and beautiful than in his 
earlier work, but less vigorous. Many other works are as- 
cribed to Veit Stoss, some of them without due reason. 

Adam Kraft. — Adam Kraft {ca. 14^0-1509) seems to have 
spent his entire life at Nuremberg. His earliest known works 
are the reliefs of Christ bearing the Cross, the Entombment, 
and the Resurrection in the Schreyer tomb on the outside 
of the Sebalduskirche. The contract, dated 1492, calls for 
the reproduction in stone of the paintings which adorned the 



tomb, and the carefully executed reliefs, with figures in differ- 
ent planes and landscape backgrounds, certainly do produce 
the effect of pictures, an effect which was doubtless much 
stronger before the original coloring was lost. Kraft's most 
remarkable work is the magnificent tabernacle, about 65 feet 
in height, in the Lorenzkirche. This is an openwork pjTamid, 
like the spires of some German Gothic churches, richly 
adorned with figure sculpture, some of which, in the upper 
parts of the structure, is almost hidden from view. The 

reliefs of the 
Seven Stations 
of the Cross, on 
the way to the 
cemetery of St. 
John (about 
1505), are sim- 
pler and more 
vigorous than 
the earlier works 
(Fig. 163). The 
great tabernacle 
was evidently 
famous at the 
time of its erec- 
tion, for it was 
imitated in sev- 
eral places. The 
picturesque style 
of Kraft's work may also have led to the remarkable imita- 
tions of tree trunks, flowers, and the like in some Saxon 
churches, for instance, that of Freiberg. Kraft was the 
author of various Madonnas and reliefs, the most interesting 
of which is the half-comic representation of the City Scales 
over the gateway of the Weighing House of Nuremberg. 

Peter Vischer. Flotner. — Peter Yischer (1460-1529) was 
the son of a bronze worker, Hermann Vischer, who cast the 
Gothic font in Wittenberg (1457). He moved his establish- 
ment from Ulm to Nuremberg, where, under Peter's manage- 

FiGUEE 163. — The Fifth Station of the Crosa, 
by Adam Kraft. Nuremberg. (Photo. Dr. F. 
Stoedtner, Berhn, NW.) 


ment, it gained an international reputation. The works of 
Peter Vischer are all tombs, either simple slabs, ornamented 
epitaphs, or elaborate free-standing structures. The earli- 
est of these is the tomb of Archbishop Ernst of Saxony, at 
Magdeburg, the sculptured figures of which show, in the 
simplicity of attitudes and draperies, the beginning of the 
Renaissance. His most important monument is the tomb 
of St. Sebaldus at Nurem- 
berg, an elaborate structure 
of Gothic form, the first 
sketch for which dates from 
1488, whereas the work was 
done between 1507 and 1519. 
In the figure scidpture of this 
monument the influence of 
Italian, specifically Venetian, 
art is clearly seen. This 
may be due in part to Diirer, 
but Peter's sons, Peter the 
younger and Hans, had, ap- 
parently, both visited Italy 
and both worked with him 
on this tomb. Perhaps, 
then, their part in the work 
was considerable. In 1513 
Peter was called by the 
Emperor Maxmilian to Inns- 
bruck to work on the great 
tomb of the Hapsburgs. He 
received payment for two 
statues, and it is generally 
Theodoric and Arthur (Fig. 

Figure 1 64. ^ — Bronze Statue of 
King Arthur, by Peter Vischer. 

assumed that the statues of 
164) are his work. They are 
certainly the best of the statues of the tomb, and are remark- 
able works. The statue of Arthur is one of the finest bronze 
statues in existence. After their father's death Peter the 
younger and Hans continued to work in bronze, but their 
productions, in the style of the Renaissance, are for the most 
part no longer tombs, but small objects of decorative art. 



Of the numerous lesser masters of Nuremberg the most im- 
portant was Peter Flotner, or Flettner {ca. 1485-1546), who 
was chiefly a wood-carver, but was also architect, decorator, 
and maker of medals. His activity hastened the introduc- 
tion of the Italian Renaissance. 

Riemenschrieider. — In Lower Franconia there were sculptors 
of various merits, but the only one of importance is Til- 
man Riemenschneider 
(1468-1531), who was 
born at Osterode in 
the Harz, came to 
Wiirzbiu-g at least as 
early as 14S-'], was 
Burghermaster in 
1520, became involved 
in the peasant insur- 
rection in 1525, and 
died in prison in 1531. 
He worked in wood 
and in stone. His 
earliest known work is 
the wooden altarpiece 
in [Miinnerstadt 
(1490) ; the Adam and 
Eve (1493) at the 
doorway of the chapel 
of the Virgin at Wiirz- 
burg and the Ma- 
donna of the Xeu- 
miinsterkirche (1493) 
show his ability in 
the representation of the nude (at that time unusual in 
Germany) and in the treatment of draperies respectively. 
Three works which were formerly attributed to an anony- 
mous master are now found to be by Riemenschneider : the 
altarpieces at Creglingen (Fig. 165), Rotenburg, and Det- 
wang, the finest of which, that at Creglingen, was carved 
between 1495 and 1499. The tomb of the Emperor Henry il 

Figure 16.5. — The Creglingen Altarpiece, 
by Tilman Riemenschneider. (Photo. Dr. 
F. .Stoedtner, Berlin, XAV.) 


(1499-1513), at Bamberg, is often spoken of as his master- 
piece. Even in his latest works, Riemenschneider is still 
Gothic in manner. He is distinguished for excellent work- 
manship, picturesque realism, and delicate sentiment. 

Swabia and the Upper Rhine. Ahiltscher, Syrlin, Dauer 
— Medal-makers. — The school of Swabia and the Upper 
Rhine seems to have derived its inspiration from the Flemish- 
Burgundian school of Dijon. In Swabia the chief centre is 
Ulm, where the first sculptor of much importance is Hans 
Multscher, from Reichenhofen in the Allgau, who was en- 
rolled as a citizen of Ulm in 1427. His great work is the altar- 
piece at Sterzing, in Tyrol (1458), a monumental composition 
comprising thirty-five figures. 
These are now scattered, 
though most of them are still 
in Sterzing, but not together. 
The central figure, the Ma- 
donna, is still in its original 
place. It is graceful, with an 
expression of great sweetness, 
and with admirable drapery. 
Some of the other figures of 
this great work were certainly F'O'^-.n'^ifie. — A Vv orkman, by Jorg 

, ° , , , . ■' Syrlin the Elder. Munich. 

by other hands, perhaps m part 

by Jorg Syrlin (ca. 1430-1491), the successor of Multscher 
and the most popular sculptor of the school of Ulm. In the 
choir stalls of the cathedral at Ulm (1469-1474) the half 
figures of prophets and sibyls above the seats are portraits 
of great individuality, liveliness, and realism, remarkable 
alike for their expression of character and their fine technique. 
The slender figures of knights about the fountain in the 
market-place (1482) are also by Syrlin. Twelve busts of 
oak, from the abbey of Weingarten (Fig. 166) are attributed 
to him on grounds of style. His son, Jorg Syrlin the younger, 
carved (1493-1495) the stalls in the Benedictine church at 
Blaubeuren, in imitation of those at Ulm. The altarpiece 
in the same church is a characteristic work of the school of 
Syrlin. In general, this school is less dramatic than the school 


of Xuremberg and shows less ability in composition. Single 
figures are preferred to groups. These figures are natural, 
serious, sometimes even noble ; but the attitudes are imcer- 
tain, and there is little motion. At Augsburg, which suc- 
ceeded Ulm as the centre of Swabian sculpture, the chief 
sculptors of the sixteenth century were Adolf and Hans 
Dauer, or Daucher, whose style is more graceful and less 
archaic than that of the school of Ulm. Adolf Dauer is the 
author of the altarpiece and the stalls of the Fugger chapel, 
which have been broken up and dispersed ; the musemn at 
Berlin possesses sixteen busts of personages of the Old 
Testament, which are portraits of members of the Fugger 
family. Adolf's son Hans carved small bas reliefs after the en- 
gravings of Diirer and Schongauer. His mjiihological reliefs, 
now in the museums of Berlin, Vienna, and Sigmaringen, are 
remarkable for rich Renaissance architecture, excellent per- 
spective, and fine execution. Swabian artists, among them 
Hans Schwarz, Hans Kels, and Ludwig Krug, made many 
medals of soft stone in the sixteenth century, but these do 
not equal the medals made in Italy at the same time. 

Mainz. Conrad Meit. Nicolas Lerch. — At various places 
along the Upper Rhine and the Upper Danube are interesting 
works of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. So at Mainz, 
in the cathedral, is a fine series of tombs, two of which, that 
of Cardinal Albert von Brandenburg (1504) and that of Uriel 
von Gemmingen (1514), are by Hans Backofen. The latter 
especially, ^-ith its hea\'j' draperies and broad style, its ef- 
fective contrasts of light and shade, is a powerful and im- 
pressive work. At Trier also are some fine tombs, the finest 
perhaps that of Johann von Metzhausen. One of the best 
of the Rhenish sculptors of the period is Conrad J\leit, of 
Worms, who was known in Italy as Corrado Fiammengo. 
In 1487 he car\-ed a series of reliefs of scenes of the childhood 
of Jesus, in the baptistery of the cathedral at Worms ; in the 
early years of the sixteenth century he worked at Wittenberg 
and at ^lalines ; and INIargaret of Austria employed him in the 
decoration of the chapel in the church of Brou, which she 
erected in honor of her husband (1526). His work is remark- 


able for close observation of nature and delicate workmanship. 
Among Dutch sculptors who worked in Germany Nicholas 
of Leyden (Glaus Gerhaert, known as Nicolas Lerch) is the 
most noted. His work at Baden (1461), Strassburg (1464), 
Constance (1470), and Vienna (the tomb of Emperor Fred- 
erick III) is distinguished for its vigorous realism. 

Bavaria. — In Bavaria stone sculpture predominates, 
owing to the presence of red marble and Solenhof limestone. 
The figures are strong, thick-set, some- 
times coarse, simple in pose and move- 
ment, often stiff; the drapery has 
small, irregular folds, with no clearly 
expressed motives. Yet there is real 
naturalism, and earnestness in expres- 
sion and composition. The gravestone 
of the Emperor Ludwig the Bavarian, 
in the Frauenkirche at Munich (soon 
after 1468), by master Hans, is a work 
of dignity and power. The churches 
of Munich, Landshut, Passau, and 
Ratisbon contain many monuments 
of this coarse and vigorous art. The 
chief of the Munich school was Eras- 
mus Grasser, who was active in 1480 
and certainly for some years before 
and after that date. The finest wooden 
sculptures of Bavaria are the statues 
of Christ, the Virgin, and the twelve 
Apostles in the monastery of Blutenburg, near Munich (Fig. 
167), which exhibit more slender proportions, more impres- 
sive drapery, and a finer sense of beauty than other 
Bavarian works. 

Tyrol. — In Tyrol wood is almost the only material of 
sculpture, and the only sculptor of importance is Michael 
Pacher of Bruneck. He is first mentioned in 1467 and died 
in 1498. His altarpiece of St. Wolfgang (I477-148I) is his 
finest work, and shows most fully his naturalism, his liking 
for rich garments, for variety of pose, and for dramatic group- 

FiGURB 167. — St. Mat- 
thew. Blutenburg. 


ing. His altarpieces contain paintings and sculpture, all his 
work, and produce the effect of carved pictures. Pacher's 
art was influenced by that of Bavaria and also by that of 
northern Italy. The same is the case with Tyrolese art of 
this period in general. 

Northern Germany. — In northern Germany the influence 
of the Netherlands was predominant ; in fact, many of the 
works of this period in these regions are by Flemish or Dutch 
artists. Wood was the favorite material, and the general 
tendency of the sculptors was toward fine detail rather than 
broad surfaces, many figures rather than simple groups, 
picturesque effects rather than statuesque dignity. Under 
Netherland influence local centres developed at Calcar, in 
the Hanse cities, and in Schleswig-Holstein. Many altar- 
pieces were exported from Liibeck to the Baltic provinces 
and the Scandinavian countries, but these commercial pro- 
ductions are anonjTnous and of little interest. At Calcar the 
chief works are by artists from the Netherlands. The great 
altarpiece in the cathedral at Schleswig (1515-1521), by Hans 
Briiggemann, is wonderfully decorative, with its elaborate 
Gothic ornament and its scores, even hundreds, of finely 
carved figures; but with all its richness it exhibits little 
power of invention. This is the masterpiece of a school which 
flourished throughout the fifteenth century and into the six- 

Silesia and Sa.vo7iy. — In Silesia the local art was strongly 
influenced by the school of Nuremberg. In Saxony much 
wood-carving of little importance was done, and there was 
some good sculpture in stone, which shows the influence of 
Peter Vischer and of the painter Wohlgemuth. Such are the 
reliefs (1499-1525), by Theophilus Ehrenfried and his helpers, 
and the "Schone Pforte" (beautiful gate; 1512), by an un- 
kno^Ti artist, at Annaberg. 

Period of Decadence. Foreign Sculptors. — About 1530 
the decadence of German sculpture becomes marked and 
continues until about 1680. The causes of this were the 
Reformation, the impoverishment of the people, and the 
thirty years' war. Popular art gave way to court art, and 


the princes called to their courts Dutchmen or Italianized 
Flemings. German sculptors were reduced to the condition 
of artisans. Alexander Colin, of Malines, who decorated in 
Flemish style the facade of the castle at Heidelberg, was 
called to Innsbruck in 1562 to finish the tomb of Emperor 
Maximilian. He modelled the bronze statue of the kneeling 
emperor and carved the picturesque alabaster reliefs of the 
sarcophagus. The tomb of Emperor Ludwig I, the Bavarian, 
in the Frauenkirche at Munich, 
was designed by Pieter de Witte, 
better known as Pietro Candido 
or Peter Candid, who had ac- 
quired the "grand style" in 
Italy. He was for many years, 
beginning with 1586, the real 
director of art in Munich. At 
Augsburg the fountain of the 
Emperor Augustus (1593) is by 
Hubert Gerhard of Antwerp, 
and the fountains of Mercury 
and of Hercules (1599) are by 
Adriaen de Vries, a pupil of 
Giovanni Bologna, who was 
afterwards called to Prague as 
sculptor to Emperor Rudolf II. 
These names suffice to show the 
character of sculpture in Ger- 
many ; it was not German 
sculpture. Even before the thirty years' war German 
sculpture had ceased to exist. 

Revival of Sculpture. ScMuter. — Toward the end of the 
seventeenth century Germans began again to practise sculp- 
ture, chiefly for architectural decoration. Foreign influence, 
which at this time is the influence of the Italian baroque, is 
very strong. The first important sculptor is Andreas 
Schliiter (1664-1714). He was probably at some time in 
Italy, for he shows the Italian sense for monumental effect, 
but in other respects he is attached rather to the Dutch school, 

Figure 168. — The Great Elec- 
tor, by Schliiter. Berlin. 


which was predominant in northern Germany in his early 
days. His first work of importance is a not very successful 
bronze statue of the Elector Frederick III (cast 1697), now 
in Konigsberg. His equestrian statue of Frederick IH (cast 
1700), in Berhn, is tlie finest equestrian statue of the time 
(Fig. 168). The twenty-one masks of dying warriors in the 
court of the arsenal at Berlin belong to the same period and 
constitute Schliiter's most brilliant work. The marble pulpit 
of the Marienkirche (1703) with its marble angels sporting 
upon marble clouds, and the tomb of the goldsmith Mannlich, 
in the Xicolaikirche are slightly later. Many of Schliiter's 
other works are lost or are small and not identified. He was 
an artist of ability, but not of great originality. He is the 
chief German representative of the baroque style. 

Donner. Messerschmidi. — Georg Raphael Donner (1692- 
1741) aimed at simplicity, truth, and beauty of form, through 
study of nature and (to some extent) antiquity. He marks 
a reaction against the baroque and rococo. His last and 
ripest work is the fountain in the Xeumarkt, Vienna. Here, in 
the centre of a basin, is a seated female figure (Prudence) raised 
on a base about which are nearly nude urchins with spouting 
fishes. Round the edge of the basin are the four rivers of 
Austria. The figures are long, the heads not very individual ; 
but the general design is excellent and the execution good. 
Various other works of Donner are in Menna, Pressburg, and 
Salzbiug. He belongs entirely to the south of Germany, as 
Schliiter to the north. Of the sculptors who worked with 
and about Donner none was more than a skilful decorator. 
His chief successor was Franz Xaver Messerschmidt (17.32- 
1783), who produced portraits of marked individuality. 

Decorative Sculpture. Peter Wagner. — In connection with 
baroque and rococo architecture much sculpture was created, 
and not a little of this is really good as decoration, though it is 
often carelessly executed and shows much exaggeration of atti- 
tude and expression. Peter Wagner (b. 1730), who produced 
over one hundred altars and pulpits in Bavaria, shows, in 
some of them, a fine sense of beauty and harmony of line ; had 
he not produced so much, he might have been a great artist. 



The Netherlands 

Earlier Sculpture in the Netherlands. — Before discussing 
the sculpture of the Renaissance in the Netherlands a few 
words must be devoted to the sculpture of earlier times. 
Unfortunately the ravages of the iconoclasts in the second 
half of the sixteenth century, especially in 1566, destroyed a 
very great part of the sculpture which then existed, and how 
great the destruction in the war that began in 1914 may prove 
to be cannot yet be determined. Certainly many of the 
works to be mentioned presently are no longer in existence. 

There seems to have been little Romanesque or early 
Gothic sculpture, and what there was showed little national 
character, but was dependent upon French or Rhenish art. 
In the fourteenth century there was an important school at 
Tournai, where interesting funereal monuments were pro- 
duced, the reliefs of which contained relatively few figures, 
and these natural and dignified and arranged in simple groups. 
In the fifteenth century the sculpture of the Netherlands 
attained great importance throughout Europe. Janin 
Lomme at Pampeluna, in Spain (see page 252), Claus Sinter 
and his fellow-workers at Dijon (see page 213) , and many others 
practised their art in foreign lands, and the number of works 
of sculpture exported from the Netherlands was very great. 
They are to be found in nearly every country of Europe. 

Sculpture in Small Dimensions. — The art in which the 
sculptors of the Netherlands excelled is not great monumental 
art, but sculpture of small dimensions, for the most part in 



relief, employed for the adornment of chm-ch furnishings 
rather than for that of the buildings themselves. Com- 
paratively little of this work is of stone, though there are 
some fine stone choir screens and tabernacles, as in St. Pierre 
at Louvain, at Aerschot, Dixmude, Tesserenderloo, and Lierre. 
An early and typical tabernacle, in St. Martin at Hal, was 
erected in 1409 by Henri van Lattem, Meyere and Nicolas 
Clerc. This is already elaborate, but much less so than that 
in St. Pierre (1535) or that in Saint Jacques (1539) at Lou- 
vain, which rise as sculptured pjTamids to the vaulted roofs. 
The choir screens mentioned resemble those of Chartres and 
Amiens in their picturesque sculptured adornment. 

Sculpture in l]'ood. Altarpieces. — But the favorite ma- 
terial was wood, and the most frequent use of sculpture 
was in the adornment of altarpieces (retables, reredoses), 
which were made in the fifteenth century by hundreds. 
Some altarpieces were of gold and silver (as at Stavelot), a 
few were of stone (as at Gheel), and some (as at Hal, 1533) 
were faced with alabaster, but far the greatest number was 
of wood. The earliest and most famous of these was ordered 
in 1390 from Jacob de Baerse by Philip the Bold, and is now 
in the ]kluseum of Dijon. Its reliefs represent scenes from the 
New Testament. The figures are heavy, a trifle awkward, 
and draped in voluminous garments. In the reliefs of the 
Hakendover reredos, which was made toward the end of the 
fourteenth or in the beginning of the fifteenth century, there 
are some isolated figures, or figures arranged in small, simple 
groups, which have something of the monumental Gothic 
style, but the thirteen groups recording the erection of the 
village church are in a new style, with lifelike figures clad in 
well-draped garments. 

Picturesque Art of the Altarpieces. — The art of the altar- 
pieces of the Netherlands is picturesque, anecdotic, and 
realistic. The sculptures were brightly colored and much 
gilding was employed. The reliefs were framed in a florid 
Gothic setting. With all their liveliness, they are more or less 
conventional, and many of them are merely industrial works, 
made doubtless in considerable numbers by workers in large 


shops and sold to such customers as chose to buy them, not 
made with special reference to the places where they were to 
be set up. Their style, which was somewhat stiff and heavy 
at first, gains in freedom and grace in the latter part of the 
fifteenth century. The chief centres of this art were Antwerp 
and Brussels, but there were many sculptors also at Malines, 
Haarlem, Leyden, and Utrecht. The work done at all these 
centres, and at other, less important, places, was essentially 
similar, with only slight local differences. Some altarpieces 
are, however, really original works of art. Such are those at 
Herenthals (1510-1537) and in Notre Dame of Lembeck, 
by Passchier Borremans, that from Notre Dame hors la 
Ville at Louvain (now in the museum at Brussels), by Jan 
Borremans, another in the museum at Brussels which con- 
tains the portraits of the donors, Claude de Villa and Gentine , 
Solaro, that of Oplinter, done at Antwerp in 1525, and those 
of Loenhout, Villiers-la-Ville, and St. Denis at Liege. In all 
these and not a few others the individuality of a real artist is 
seen, though the essential elements of style are the same in all. 

Statues. — • A limited number of statues exists which were 
made in the Netherlands in the fifteenth and sixteenth cen- 
turies. They are naturalistic, realistic, and expressive. At 
Dinant, Malines, and Tournai were skilful metal workers, 
who produced reliefs and statuettes possessing much the 
same qualities as the wooden sculptures of the altarpieces. 

The Italian Renaissance in the Netherlands. — In the six- 
teenth century the Italian style reaches the Netherlands. 
The tomb of Mary of Burgundy, by Jan de Backere of 
Brussels (1495), already shows traces of Italian influence, and 
this influence increased rapidly. The fireplace in the council 
room of the Franc de Bruges, designed by the painter Lance- 
lot Blondeel, executed by Guyot de Beaugrand and three 
others, was set up in 1529. The reliefs with which it is 
decorated contain life-size figures of Charles V, Maximilian I 
and his wife Mary of Burgundy, Ferdinand of Aragon and 
Isabella of Castile. The quiet grace and relatively simple 
draperies of these figures show a break with the traditions of 
Flemish art, and the ornamental motives — putti, escutch- 



eons, scrollwork — are fully in the style of the Renais- 
sance. So even in altarpieces, which had been the chief 
productions of the earlier art, the Renaissance changes first 
the ornamental framework, then the arrangement, the 
drapery, the attitudes, and the expression of the figures. 
In the altarpiece of .Saint Martin, at Hal, by Jehan Mone 
(1533), the change is complete. Many examples could be 
cited, and many names might be given, but the works seldom 
rise above skilful mediocrity, and the scidptors exhibit little 
originality. Only a few need be mentioned. Jacques du 

_ B r o e u c q, of 

M o n s ( b . be- 
tween 1500 and 
1510, d. 1.54S), 
studied in Rome 
and returned to 
Mons in 1535. 
His works are 
chiefly in his 
native town. 
His style is that 
of the Renais- 
sance, retaining 
little or nothing 
of the mediaeval 
spirit. Some of 
the work of the 

FiGUKE 169.- 

- Choir Screen at Tournai, by Cornells 
de Vriendt. 

rood-screen of Sainte Waudru, at Mons, has a grace and 
elegance which calls to mind Sansovino or Jean Goujon. 
Cornells de Vriendt, or Floris (Antwerp, 151S-1575), pre- 
serves in his art no trace of his northern origin. His 
chief extant works are the tabernacle of Lean (1551), the 
tabernacle of Zuerbempde, the tomb of Christian of 
Denmark, at Roeskilde, and the choir screen at Tournai 
(Fig. 169), though this last is attributed to him without 
documentary evidence. His work is pleasing, and his deco- 
ration rich, but he shows no great power or originaUty. 
Sculptors who worked in the manner of Cornells de Vriendt 


in the sixteenth century were numerous ; among them were 
Pieter Coecke of Alost (1507-1550), the unknown artist of 
the tomb of Jean de Merode (d. 1559) at Gheel, and Alexander 
Colin or Colyns (1529-1622), whose work at Innsbruck and 
Prague has already been mentioned. There was much orna- 
mental sculpture of putti and scrollwork ("grotesques") in 
the sixteenth century, especially in the first half, which 
resembles closely the contemporary work of the same kind 
done in Italy. The most famous example of this is in the 
town hall at Audenarde, by Paul van der Schelde (15.31). 

The Baroque in the Netherlands. — In the seventeenth cen- 
tury the baroque style flourished abundantly in the Nether- 
lands. Among the earliest artists in this style were Jan and 
Robert de Nole, who came from Utrecht but were made 
citizens of Antwerp in 1593. Their works — tombs and 
figures of saints — are seen in a number of churches in 
Antwerp, Brussels, and Ghent. Frangois Duquesnoy (1594- 
1642), the most distinguished Flemish sculptor of his time, 
was the son of a sculptor, Jerome Duquesnoy, who was 
active at Brussels until 1641. Francois went to Italy in 1618 
and remained there until his death. His activity was chiefly 
in Rome, where he was known as Francesco Flamingo, and 
the only work by him in Belgium is the admirable tomb of 
the Bishop of Trieste, in the church of St. Bavon at Ghent ; 
even this was finished by his brother Jerome (1602-1654). 
Another family of sculptors bore the name of Quellin, or 
Quellinus, and each of the three known members of the 
family was named Artus. The eldest was admitted to 
the guild of St. Luke in 1606. His son Artus Quellin 
(1609-1668) is the best artist of the family and the one 
meant when the name is mentioned without further quali- 
fication. His chief work is the sculptured decoration of 
the town hall at Amsterdam. He was a sculptor of no little 
power, and his influence extended into Germany. His 
nephew, Artus Quellin the younger (1625-1700), assisted him 
in his work at Amsterdam and made many statues for 
churches. Still another family of sculptors is that of Ver- 
bruggen. The father, Pierre Verbruggen the elder, was a 


pupil of his brother-in-la«-, Artus Quellin, and the teacher of 
his two sons, Pierre the younger and Henri Francois. Hardly 
a church in their nati\'e Antwerp is without some work of this 
gifted family. The most famous of all their works, however, 
is the pulpit of Ste. Gudide, at Brussels, by Henri Franqois 
(1700), with its picturesque representation of the expulsion of 
Adam and Eve from paradise. Other well-known sculptors 
are Jean Delcom, of Liege (1627-1707), and Lucan Fayd'- 
herbe (1617-1697), of Malines. The works of these and many 
more, for the number of sculptors at this time was great, 
consists chiefly, though by no means exclusively, of church 
furnishings, choir screens, altars, stalls, confessionals, pulpits, 
communion benches, and tombs. In these much invention 
and great technical skill is displayed. The gorgeousness and 
freedom of the paintings of Rubens, and sometimes his 
ability in portraiture, seem transferred to wood and marble. 
In the eighteenth century a reaction toward classicism set in, 
one of the leaders of which was Lambert Godecharle, of 
Brussels (1750-1835). 


A Period of Decadence. Tombs. Nicholas Stone. Grirv- 
hng Gibbons. — The period of the Renaissance is a time of 
decadence in English sculpture. Most of the important 
monuments are the work of foreigners, and the few English 
sculptors show little ability. The engraved brasses on 
tombs of the fifteenth century are for the most part imported 
or were made by artists from the Netherlands, as were also 
many decorative sculptures. In the sixteenth century 
alabaster carvings were still popular, but were mere com- 
mercial work. Much building went on early in the century, 
and in connection with churches and castles there was much 
good ornamental carving of wood and stone. The chapel of 
King's College, Cambridge, contains fine examples of such 
work. The chapel of Henry VII, in Westminster Abbey, is 
richly adorned with purely ornamental sculpture and also — 
which is \ery exceptional — with figures. In these some 
Flemish influence is evident, which gives them variety of 



pose and action. These are the last examples of English 
figure sculpture before the coming of Italian art. The 
tomb of Henry VII and the bronze effigy of Margaret of 
Richmond in the chapel of Henry VII in Westminster Abbey 
are the work of Pietro Torrigiano (see page 295) , and Benedetto 
da Rovezzano (see page 295) designed a tomb for Cardinal 
Wolsey ; ^ other Italian sculptors also worked in England, 
but their works exercised little influence upon native art, 
which was more affected by the art of the Netherlands. It 












t ^-" 

,., ^.^.^im 


*-, —■ '-^*' l; \ 







FiGDEE 170. 

-The Tomb of Sir Francis Vere, by Stone. Westminster 

was from the Netherlands that the Renaissance came to 
England, where it had triumphed completely before the 
middle of the century. In the seventeenth century many 
highly ornamental tombs of marble and alabaster were 
erected in England, but their figure sculpture is neither 
beautiful in design nor fine in execution. The chief native 
English sculptor was Nicholas Stone (1586-1647), who worked 
much under the supervision of the architect Inigo Jones and 

' The sarcophagus of this tomb is now in St. Paul's and holds the body 
of Lord Nelson. 


made many tombs. He is generally regarded as the artist 
of the tombs of Sir Francis Vere (d. 1607) and George VilHers, 
duke of Buckingham (d. 1628), and his wife, both in West- 
minster x\bbey. These are the finest tombs in England of this 
period. Apparently the Villiers monument is the work of 
two sculptors, and no documentary evidence connects either 
of these tombs with Nicholas Stone. The Vera monument 
(Fig. 170), with its recumbent effigy, over which foiu- kneeling 
men-at-arms hold up a slab co\'ered with armor, is almost a 
copy of the tomb of Engelbert II of Manden-Nassau. The 
execution is fine. In the Villiers monument the effigies are 
exceptionally good, and the kneeling figures of the duke's 
children are well designed, but the allegorical figures are with- 
out interest. Grinling Gibbons (1648-1721) was a native of 
Holland. He was a skilful sculptor, who exercised his skill 
largely in carving realistic fruit and flowers in wood. In the 
early part of the eighteenth century he worked under Sir 
Christopher Wren. His work may be seen in Trinity College, 
Cambridge, in the stalls and screens of St. Paul's, London, and 
in other churches. 

The Eighteenth Century. Foreigners. John Bacon. 
Thomas Banks. — In the eighteenth century French and 
Flemish sculptors were employed in most of the important 
works. The chief among them were Roubiliac (1695-1762), 
Peter Scheemakers (1691-177.3), and J. M. Rvsbrack (1694- 
1770). Joseph Nollekens (1737-182.3), a pupil of Schee- 
makers, was the author of many portrait busts. John Bacon 
(1740-1799) was English, and his work, especially portraits, 
is not without merit. Thomas Banks (173.5-1805) studied in 
Rome and was affected by ancient art; his works have 
something of the neo-classic manner. 


Plateresque Decoration. — In the fifteenth century the art 
of the Netherlands and of Germany had supplanted the French 
art which had prevailed in Spain in earlier times. Meanwhile 
the old mudejar traditions were still strong, and in some 
places, as in the cathedral (formerly the mosque) at Cordova, 
fine stucco decoration in pure mudejar style was still em- 
ployed. In other places the combination of flamboyant 
Gothic, Renaissance, and mudejar elements produced a rich 
and characteristic style of decoration, of which the facade 
of the university at Salamanca (about 1480) is a fine example. 
Such decoration, called plateresque, from its resemblance to 
goldsmith's work, is prevalent until the final triumph of the 
Renaissance. An example in which the Renaissance ele- 
ments are stronger than in the university at Salamanca is the 
portal of the hospital of Santa Cruz at Toledo (Fig. 171), by 
Enrique de Egas (1494-1514). 

Foreign Artists and Influences. — Many fine wood-carvings 
in churches — stalls, screens, altarpieces — in the fifteenth 
and the early part of the sixteenth centuries are the work of 
foreigners ; the names of Jean de Malines and the German 
Theodoric are connected with the stalls at Leon ; a Fleming, 
a Hollander, and three Frenchmen were at work in Zamora 
from 1512 to 1516 ; Rodrigo Aleman carved the stalls at Pla- 
sencia and those of Toledo with their lively battle scenes ; 
the Fleming Dancart wrought the wonderful altarpiece at 
Seville ; Copin, of Holland, was the artist of the royal tombs, 
and some parts, at least, of "the great altarpiece at Toledo 
(1507). In these works the style is northern, only the 
increased splendor and magnificence being Spanish. The 




Figure 171 . — Portal of the Hospital of Santa Cruz. Toledo. 


foreign artists had native assistants. So Sebastian Almonacid 
was employed with Copin at Toledo ; he had carved twelve 
statues of apostles at Parral in 1494, and in 1509 he worked at 
Seville with a sculptor, Pedro Millan, who may have been a 
Fleming. It is as yet impossible in most cases to tell what 
part in any great work belongs to the Spanish workers, but 
not a little of the sculpture of the many fine tombs and other 
works of this period must be attributed to Spaniards. The 
rich and splendid sculpture of San Juan de los Reyes, at 
Toledo, begun by Juan Guas, perhaps a Fleming, is neither 
Flemish nor Gothic, in spite of the Gothic form of its setting. 

Gil de Siloe and the School of Burgos. — The most brilliant 
work of Castillian sculpture is the burial chapel in the Cartuja 
of Miraflores (Fig. 172), near Burgos, which contains the 
alabaster tombs of King Juan II and his queen Isabella and 
of Alfonso (father, mother, and brother of the great Isabella), 
and a magnificent reredos of wood. The tombs were begun 
in 1489, the reredos in 1496. The whole was finished in 1499, 
and forms an ensemble of surpassing richness, gleaming with 
gold, color, and the warm glow of alabaster. The almost 
confusing wealth of detail is elaborated with the greatest care. 
The effigies of the dead are admirable, and each accessory 
figure and statuette is a work of art in itself. Of the artist, 
Gil de Siloe, little is known except his works. He collaborated 
with the foreigners who worked in the cathedral at Burgos, 
and was the artist of the tomb of Juan de Padilla (d. 1491), 
which is now in the museum at Burgos. At Miraflores he 
combines the teachings of the Flemish and German masters 
with the traditions of mudejar art. Other masters of the 
school of Burgos are Diego de la Cruz and master Guillen, 
to whom the great reredos in the chapel of the Conception in 
the cathedral at Burgos is attributed. Their work is, except 
in its size and magnificence, northern in character. Several 
other similar altarpieces, which make the whole wall dis- 
appear behind a mass of reliefs, are to be seen at Burgos. 

Portuguese Sculpture. — In Portugal the art of this period 
was also a mixture of northern realism with the rich geo- 
metrical ornament of oriental art. It is vigorous and 



Figure 172. — Tomb of Juan II and Isabella of Portugal. Miraflores, near 


decorative, giving more prominence than Spanish sculpture 
to the Arab elements. 

Italian Sculptors in Spain. — Italian sculpture came to 
Spain in the fifteenth century. Between 1417 and 1420, a 


Florentine, Giuliano da Poggibonsi, who had worked under 
Ghiberti on the earlier bronze door of the baptistery, carved 
twelve alabaster panels with biblical scenes in the cathedral 
at Valencia. An altarpiece (destroyed in 1812) at Valencia 
was made soon after 1469 by a Pisan silversmith. A Floren- 
tine, Giovanni Moreto, who was settled at Saragossa before 
1513 and worked there until after 1542, was undoubtedly 
influential in making the Italian style prevail in Aragon. 
His chapel and altarpiece at Jaca (1523), his two altarpieces 
and his stalls at Saragossa are all in the style of the Italian 
Renaissance. In Murcia and Granada two Florentines, 
Francesco and Jacopo Indaco, worked as architects and 
sculptors about 1520, and at Granada a Milanese, Martino, 
was also employed. The tomb of the Infanta Don Juan 
(1512) at Avila and the double tomb of Ferdinand and 
Isabella (1517) at Granada are works of a Florentine, 
Domenico di Sandro Fancelli, to whom the tombs of Cardinal 
Pedro de Mendoza, at Toledo, and Archbishop Don Diego 
Hurtado may also be attributed. A "Miguel Florentin" 
also worked at Seville about the same time. Somewhat 
earlier Nicoluso di Francesco, of Pisa, had brought to Seville 
the glazed polychrome terra-cotta of the della Robbia. Pietro 
Torrigiano was at Seville in 1526 and died there in 1528. 
His chief works, a series of painted terra-cotta statues, 
probably exercised considerable influence. Several other 
Italian sculptors worked in Spain, and the trade in finished 
Carrara marbles, which was carried on chiefly at Genoa, also 
served to spread the style of the Renaissance in Spain. 

Early Spanish Sculptors ivho adopted the Italian Style. — 
Spaniards were quick to adopt the Italian style. In Granada 
Juan Garcia de Pradas made the doorway to the royal chapel 
(1522), decorated in the style of the Renaissance. At 
Sigiienza, in Castile, under the leadership of Domenico 
Fancelli, a group of Spanish sculptors — Francisco Guillen 
of Toledo, Francisco de Baeza, Juan de Talavera, and a Sebas- 
tian, no doubt Almonacid — worked together in the new 
style. The chief Spanish sculptor in Castile was the highly 
gifted Vasco de la Zanza, who retains in the ornamentation of 


the tomb of the bishop Alonso Carrillo de Albornoz (d. 1514) 
of Toledo few traces of the Gothic style, and in his other 
works none at all. His chief pupil was Juan Rodriguez, 
whose most important work is the rich — too rich — decora- 
tion of the church at Parral. Bartolome Ordoiiez, of Burgos, 
after a sojourn in Italy, established an atelier at Barcelona, 
where his statues and reliefs of the choir screen in the ca- 
thedral are the first important works of the Renaissance in 
Catalonia. He was soon called upon to finish a series of 
tombs, including that of Cardinal Ximenez de Cisneros, at 
Henares, begun by Fancelli for the Fonseca family, and to 
make the tomb of Philip the Fair and Joanna the Mad at 
Granada. For greater ease and rapidity of work he removed 
to Carrara, where he died in 1520. The works he had begun 
were finished according to his plans by the workers of Carrara. 
He had assimilated the Italian style completely. 

Borgona. — Felipe Vigarni (Felipe de Borgona ; d. 1543), 
of Burgundian origin, but born at Burgos, one of the most 
important Spanish sculptors of his time, carved (1500-1505) 
the great tras-sagrario altar screen in the cathedral at Burgos, 
the most stupendous of the great Spanish altarpieces, in the 
Flemish-Gothic style, with hundreds of figures (Fig. 173). 
Later he carved some of the stalls in the cathedral at Toledo, 
and his last work is the altarpiece of the royal chapel in 
Granada (Fig. 174) in which he has adopted the style of the 
Renaissance completely. 

Berruguete, his Pupils, and his Influence. — But the most 
famous Spanish sculptor of the Renaissance was Alonso Ber- 
ruguete (1480-1561) of Paredesde Nava,in Castile, son of the 
painter Pedro Berruguete. In 1506 he was in Rome as a pupil 
of ^Michael Angelo. In 1520 he returned to Spain and was 
soon established at Valladolid. He carved marble tombs for 
which he took the general designs from Spanish works, but 
his figures are in the style of Michael Angelo, somewhat 
exaggerated. His last work, the tomb of Cardinal Juan de 
Tavera, represents the cardinal extended on his funeral 
couch, in imitation of the tomb of Cardinal Ximenez de 
Cisneros, by Fancelli and Ordonez. His most extensive 


Figure 173.- 

- The Crucifixion. Part of an Altarpiece, by Felipe de Bor- 
gona. Burgos. 

work is the decoration of the stalls of the cathedral of Toledo, 
in which the exaggerated attitudes and powerful forms betray 
the imitator of Michael Angelo. Berruguete's influence was 
great, and its effect is seen in many Spanish works of the 



FiGrRE 174. — Altarpiece by Felipe de Borgona. Granada. 

Renaissance. Among his pupils and imitators were his 
nephew Inocencio, Gaspar de Tordesillas, Francisco Giralte, 
and Tudesilla. Gaspar Becerra (1520-1571), painter as 
well as sculptor, studied in Italy and was an imitator of 
Michael Angelo as much as of Berruguete. 


Damian Forment. — In Aragon the chief sculptor of the 
Renaissance was Damian Forment (d. 1541) of Valencia, 
where his early works show the influence of the local school. 
In 1509 he went to Saragossa; here he carved the great 
alabaster altarpiece of the church of La Pilar (1511). In its 
architecture this work still retains some Gothic traits, but 
many of the figures are entirely in the style of the Renais- 
sance. This is true also of Forment's alabaster altarpiece at 
Huesca (1520), but in the wooden altarpiece of Santo Do- 
mingo de la Calgarda and that of Barbastro the Renaissance, 
as introduced by Berruguete, is completely triumphant. 
Forment's pupils, like their master, came completely under 
the influence of Berruguete. 

The Leoni. Juan de Arfe. — Under Charles V and Philip II 
two Italians, Leone Leoni (1509-1592) and his son Pompeo 
Leoni (d. 1608), were the court sculptors. Leone is the artist 
of various works in Italy and of an allegorical group in bronze 
of Charles V trampling upon Rage, and father and son 
produced the remarkable kneeling statues of the royal family 
in the Escorial, of gilded and incrusted bronze. Juan de 
Arfe (1523-160.3), though primarily a goldsmith, was also 
a sculptor of note. His bronze kneeling figure of Cristobal 
de Rojas y Sandoval, archbishop of Seville, is a masterpiece. 

JuandeJuni. Hernandez. Peyrera. Mmitanes. Roldan. 
Gixon. — Before the middle of the sixteenth century Juan de 
Juni (d. 1614), painter, architect, and sculptor, was sum- 
moned by the bishop of Oporto to build a palace. Of his 
origin nothing certain is known. He settled at Valladolid, 
where his Entombment and Virgin of the Swords are his 
chief works. His Descent from the Cross in Segovia is a 
third masterpiece. He excells in expression of emotion. 
Gregorio Hernandez, or Fernandez (1566-1636), like Juan de 
Juni and most Spanish sculptors, used color freely on his 
sculptures. His Virgin of Sorrows in Valladolid is a remark- 
able example of emotional polychrome statuary. The 
Portuguese Manuel Peyrera (1600?-1667) is known chiefly 
by his St. Bruno, at the monastery of Miraflores, near Burgos, 
an impressive and powerful work. Juan Martinez Montanes 



{ca. 1564-1649) worked almost exclusively in and near 
Seville. His most noted works are figures of Christ omnip- 
otent, Christ dying, and Christ of the Passion, in which his 
fervent piety and his ability to express poignant emotion 
find their proper element. His other most familiar works are 
the St. Jerome of the altarpiece at Santiponce, the St. Bruno 
at Cadiz (1641), and the Immaculate Conception at Seville 
(1630) . His school was continued at Seville by Pedro Roldan 

(1624-1700), Juan An- 
tonio Gixon, and others. 
Luisa Roldan (1656- 
1704), daughter of 
Pedro, was a talented 
sculptor of terra-cottas 
and large religious fig- 
ures and groups. 

Alo7iso Cano and his 
School. — Among the 
pupils and successors of 
Montanes the chief is 
Alonso Cano (1601- 
1667), of Granada. He 
was more prolific as a 
painter than as a sculp- 
tor, though many works 
of sculpture are cur- 
rently ascribed to him. 
His St. Bruno at the 
Cartuja, the head of St. 
John the Baptist (Fig. 175) in the hospital of San Juan de Dios, 
the St. Anne with the Virgin and the Infant Jesus, and the 
"Soledad," a figure of the Virgin, all at Granada, show his 
mastery of technique, his skill in the use of color, and his 
power to express emotion. His chief pupils were Jose de 
Mora (1638-1725), Pedro de [Nlena (d. 1963), and Diego de 

The Baroque. Chirriguera. The Eighteenth Century. Zar- 
cillo and Other Sculptors. — In the latter part of the seven- 

FiGUBE 175. — Head of St. John the Bap- 
tist, by Alonso Cano. Granada. 


teenth century the baroque style in its most exaggerated form 
invaded Spain. The chief baroque sculptor was Chirriguera 
(d. 1725). At the same time some works retain something of 
the earlier emotional purity, but in general the period of 
baroque sculpture is without interest. In the eighteenth 
century Philip V undertook to revive art by bringing sculptors 
from France, and numerous French works of his time testify 
to their activity. Francisco Zarcillo (1707-1748) of Murcia, 
whose father, Nicola, from Capua, in Italy, was a sculptor, 
created statues of remarkable emotional effect and truth to 
life, though their draperies are confused and their attitudes 
exaggerated. The niunber of his works is said to be more 
than 1800. The teaching of the Academy of San Fernando 
(founded in 1751 by Ferdinand VI) undoubtedly tended to 
restrain exaggerations and excesses in sculpture, but also 
to repress originality. In general, Spanish sculpture of the 
eighteenth century lacks interest, though the number of 
sculptors is considerable. Among them may be mentioned 
A. Pujol of Catalonia, P. Duque of Seville, Juan de Hines- 
trosa, A. Salvador (d. 1766), Philip de Castro of Galicia 
(d. 1775), Francisco Gutierrez (d. 1782), Juan de Villanueva, 
the Ron brothers, Salvador Carmona, Juan Alonso Villa- 
brille, Felipe del Corral, Alfonso Bergaz, and Manuel Alvarez. 
The works of these men are seldom original in any marked 
degree. They follow the prevailing style of the French 
sculptors, often with a certain degree of grace and charm. 



Change Inevitable. — The sculpture of the seventeenth and 
eighteenth centuries developed naturally from that of the 
Renaissance, for the germs of the exaggerations and manner- 
isms of the Baroque and Rococo, the styles of Louis XIV and 
Louis XV, may be found in the works of ^lichael Angelo. 
These exaggerations and mannerisms were carried so far by 
the successors and imitators of Bernini that further develop- 
ment in the same direction was almost impossible. Sculpture 
must become simpler and quieter, and must be made less 
dependent upon architecture. The study of ancient litera- 
ture and the practice of collecting works of ancient art had 
never been discontinued since the beginning of the Renais- 
sance, and the publication, in 1764, of Winckelmann's History 
of Ancient Art had turned the attention of the learned more 
than ever toward the study of the existing remains of Greek 
and Roman sculpture. It was natural, therefore, that the 
change in development of sculpture, which was almost 
ine^■itable, should take the form of a reversion to classical 
ideals and imitation of classical models. 

Canova. — The sculptor who began the classical revival 
was Antonio Canova (1 757-1 S22j, who was born at the Httle 
town of Possagno, near \'enice. xVssisted by the Senator 
Giovanni Falieri, he was able to study sculpture at Venice, 
and the success of his early works — Orpheus and Eurydice, 
Aesculapius, Daedalus and Icarus — enabled him to go to 
Rome in 1779. Here he rose to great fame and influence, in 
spite of the opposition of the artists who followed the tradi- 
tions of Bernini. He was a very productive sculptor, for he 




executed 59 statues, 14 groups, 22 monuments, and 54 busts, 
besides a number of reliefs. When compared with the pro- 
ductions of his immediate predecessors, his works are seen 
to be far more simple, natural, and graceful. There is some- 
thing theatrical in some of them, as in the Theseus of the 
Vatican, showing that Canova's return to classicism was, 
after all, only external. His 
choice of subjects, when he was 
free to choose, makes it clear 
that classic art was his ideal, for 
nearly all his groups and statues, 
except portraits and monuments, 
represent ancient gods or heroes, 
and even his portraits show his 
admiration for antiquity; he 
represented Washington as a 
Roman senator. Napoleon's 
mother in the attitude of Agrip- 
pina, and Napoleon himself in 
the costume of a Roman em- 
peror. Among his most widely 
known works are the Theseus 
and the Minotaur, the Venus, 
the Perseus, and the Cupid and 
Psyche (Fig. 176), to which may 
be added the tombs of Popes 
Clement XIII and XIV. In his 
reliefs he is, on the whole, less 
successful than in his statues. 
He is most successful in those 
groups and statues, like the Cupid and Psyche, in which 
grace and charm, rather than vigor and power, are to 
be expressed. Even in these there , seems to be a lack 
of reality. Canova was consciously imitating antiquity 
and he was living and working at a time when the habits 
and traditions of baroque art were still strong. That his 
works should impress us to-day as somewhat artificial is only 
what might be expected. Even he, undoubtedly the greatest 

Figure 176. — Cupid and 
Psyche, by Canova. The 
Louvre, Paris. 


sculptor of his time, could not free himself entirely from the 
influences of that time. 

The Neo-clmsic School in Italy. — Canova's pupils are 
relatiA'ely few, for the classical school of sculpture soon ac- 
knowledged Thor\'aldsen as its chief. Of him it will be best 
to speak elsewhere, though he li\-ed and worked chiefly in 
Rome and his influence was supreme for a time throughout 
Italy. After Canova the chief Italian sculptor of the classical 
school was Pietro Tenerani (1798-1869), a pupil first of 
Canova, then of Thorvaldsen. His works are niunerous and 
comprise both mythological and Christian subjects. Among 
the former are Psyche with Pandora's Box, a ^"enus, a Cupid, 
a Flora, and a Faun, among the latter the most noted are a 
relief of the Deposition, in the Capella Torlouia of the Lat- 
eran, and the tomb of the Duchess Lante in Sta. Maria sopra 
Minerva. His style is correct, academic, and frigid. The 
sculptors of the neo-classic school were numerous in Italy, 
but it is hardly worth while to record their names. Their 
works exhibit little variety, as their one desire was to imitate 
the style of Greek, or rather Greco-Roman, sculpture. One 
who enjoyed no little fame in his day was Francesco Mas- 
similiano Laboureur (1767-1831), who taught sculpture with 
Cano\'a and Thorvaldsen at the Academy of St. Luke in 
Rome and made a statue of Napoleon clad in a toga. 

The Romantic School. — The neo-classic school was fol- 
lowed by the romantic school, which enlivened the academic 
coldness of the classicists by the infusion of sentiment and 
naturalism. Some indications of this tendency are visible 
in the works of Stefano Ricci (1767-1837), though he is for 
the most part a submissi\e imitator of Canova. Much more 
important is Lorenzo Bartolini (1777-1850), distinguished 
alike as practical sculptor and as teacher. At the age of 
twenty he went to Paris, where he became imbued with the 
new spirit of naturalism. His works now seem, to be sure, 
somewhat academic, but to his contemporaries in Italy they 
marked a revolt from the pure, serene, and cold stjde of the 
neo-classic school, and a return to the study of nature. 
Among them the Charity in the Pitti palace, the INIacchiavelli 


in the entrance to the UfRzi gallery, the Inconsolable in the 
Campo Santo at Pisa, and the Pyrrhus and Astyanax in the 
Poldo Pezzoli Museum in Milan may be mentioned as char- 
acteristic. Luigi Pampaloni (1791-1847) was considered the 
equal of Bartolini. He was distinguished as a sculptor of 
children, but also produced many larger works, such as the 
statues of Arnolfo di Cambio, Filippo Brunelleschi, and Leo- 
nardo da Vinci, and the monument to the singer Virginia de 
Blasiis, at Florence, the colossal statue of Pietro Leopoldo at 
Pisa, and the tomb of Lazzaro Papi at Pistoja. His works 
show spontaneity, sentiment, and taste. Among the other 
Italian sculptors who may be classed as romanticists are 
Pietro Magni (1817-1877), Giovanni Strazza (1818-1875), 
Antonio Tantardini (1829-1879), Francesco Somaini (d. 1894), 
and Tommaso Solari (1820-1889). 

The Realistic School. — The romantic school mingled senti- 
ment and naturalism with the traditions of the classicists. 
The progress of science, democracy, and individualism in the 
nineteenth century led to still further development and pro- 
duced the realistic school. It was from Paris that Bartolini 
had brought romanticism to Italy, and Paris was the chief 
centre of the realistic school in its turn. Thence it passed to 
Italy. The first Italian sculptor of the realistic school was 
Giovanni Dupre (1817-1882), a follower of Bartolini who went 
further than his master in the direction of naturalism. His 
first important work was the Death of Abel, in the Pitti 
gallery at Florence. His statues of Giotto and Sant' Anto- 
nino in the porch of the UfRzi express admirably the characters 
of the persons represented ; his Pieta in Siena is an excellent 
piece of work, and his monument to Cavour, at Turin, shows 
individuality and originality. Vincenzo Vela (1822-1891) 
was even more modern and realistic than Dupre. His 
works are many and various, including public monuments and 
portrait statues, dramatic figures, such as the Spartacus and 
the Dying Napoleon, and more ideal creations, such as Prayer 
and Resignation. Ettore Ximenes (b. 1855) is a productive 
artist, whose works possess something of the nobility and 
delicacy of the Early Renaissance and are at the same time 


realistic. The earlier among them are for the most part 
single figures ; in later life he has devoted himself chiefly to 
monumental compositions, such as the monument to Ciceru- 
acchio (190S) and the Quadriga for the Palace of Justice in 
Rome. Eugenio ]\Iaccagnani (b. 1S52J has also been prolific. 
To him are due many of the sculptures of the great monu- 
ment to Victor Emanuel in Rome. One of his most important 
works is a monument to Garibaldi at Buenos Ajtcs. The list 
of modern Italian sculptors is long, and manj- of them do 
excellent work. Their subjects are for the most part, 
though by no means exclusi^'ely, taken from daily life and 
are treated with no little grace and charm, sometimes also 
with impressive power. There is, however, a tendency 
toward excessive elaboration of details and accessories, which 
sometimes detracts from the dignity of their works. 

Denmark. Thorvaldsen. — Denmark attained sudden im- 
portance in the history of sculpture through Bertel Thor- 
valdsen (177()-ls44). Until the latter part of the seven- 
teenth century Danish art had been dependent upon the art 
of the Netherlands, but then French art became predominant. 
A Frenchman, Jacques Saly, was the first director of the 
Academy of Fine Arts, and his successor, Johannes Wiede- 
welt, was a pupil of the younger Coustou at Paris; he had 
also been in Rome, where he came under the influence of 
Winckelmann. Weidenhaupt, a Professor in the Academy, 
had studied at Paris under Pajou ; his pupil Nicholas Dajou 
was Thorvaldsen's first teacher. In 1797 Thorvaldsen went 
to Rome. " I was born on the 8th of ^larch, 1797," he was 
wont to say ; " before then I did not exist." He studied the 
works of ancient art, and of Canova, and became a more 
complete classicist than Canova himself. His first important 
work was a statue of Jason, which an English banker, ^Nlr. 
Hope, ordered carved in marble. This was the beginning of a 
career of extraordinary success. Canova, the archaeologist 
Zoega, and others united in admiring him, and pupils flocked 
to his studio. His works for some time, perhaps owing to the 
influence of Canova's example, were such as called for grace, 
rather than power. Among them are Cupid and Psyche, 



Venus (Fig. 177), Hebe, and Adonis. In 1812 he modelled 
a great relief, The Triumph of Alexander, for a hall in the 
Quirinal, to prepare the palace for the visit of Napoleon. 
This relief was immensely admired and raised the artist to 
the height of fame and popularity. Many well-known works 
belong to the next years : Nessus and Deianeira (1814), Love 
Victorious (1814), a Boy Cupid (1814), the Workshop of 
Vulcan, and Night and Morning 
(1815), Hebe and Ganymede (1816), 
Mercury (1819). In 1816 he began 
the restoration of the ancient Greek 
statues from Aegina for Prince Lud- 
wig of Bavaria. In 1819 he went 
to Denmark for a short time, and 
on his way received from the people 
of Lucerne the commission for the 
famous "Lion of Lucerne." He re- 
turned to Rome in 1820, but was 
again in Copenhagen in 1838. An- 
other visit to Rome intervened be- 
fore his jdeath, which took place at 
Copenhagen in 1844. In his journeys 
between Rome and Copenhagen he 
was overwhelmed with honors and 
commissions. The works executed 
at Copenhagen are for the most 
part of a religious nature, for in- 
stance, Christ and the Twelve Apos- 
tles, Angels keeping Christmas in 
Heaven, the Angel of Baptism, and the Preaching of St. John 
the Baptist. His productions are very numerous and can 
best be seen in the Thorvaldsen Museum at Copenhagen, 
which contains over 600 models and original works. 

Thorvaldsen' s Influence. Bissen, Sergell, Fogelberg, Jeri- 
chau. — Thorvaldsen studied and imitated ancient art, but 
could not reproduce the spirit and vigor of Greek art of the 
fifth and fourth centuries before Christ. His works have 
grace, dignity, and beauty of form ; but they lack life. His 

Figure 177. — Venus, 
by Thorvaldsen. Copen- 


influence was great, even predominant, tliroughout Europe 
and was continued in Denmark by H. W. Bissen (1798-1868), 
who, however, preferred to choose his subjects from Xorse 
ratlier than Greek mythology and in his later years turned to 
more naturahstic methods and to portraiture. Xo sculptors 
of really international reputation have arisen in Sweden and 
Norway. J. T. Sergell (1736-1813), in Sweden, was a classi- 
cist, who has been compared with Thor\'aldsen himself, and 
the Swede Fogelberg produced statues of X'orse gods which 
are much admired. J. A. Jerichau, in Xorway, continued 
the style of Thorvaldsen even to the end of the nineteenth 


The Classical Revival. — In France the classic revival was 
encouraged by the influence of the Comte d'Angevilliers, 
director of arts, manufactures, palaces, and parks under 
Louis XVI, by the authority of the eminent scholar and critic 
Quatremere de Quincy, and by the example of the famous 
painter David. Among the sculptors who were active 
chiefly in the reign of Louis XVI and the time of the Revolu- 
tion are Philippe Laurent Roland (1746-1816), Jean Guil- 
laume Moitte (1747-1810), Joseph Chinard (1756-1813), 
Pierre Cartellier (1757-1831), and Antoine Denis Chaudet 
(1763-1810), all of whom were essentially neo-classicists. 
The most important among them is Chaudet; he was 
strongly influenced by Canova, with whom he shared the 
favor of Napoleon. Many of the works of these artists were 
made of perishable material for temporary exhibition and 
have now disappeared, but enough remain to enable us to 
judge of their artificial and conventional style. 

Francois Joseph Bosio (1763-1845), an admirer and imita- 
tor of Canova, was constantly employed by Napoleon, Louis 
XVIII, and Louis Philippe. The equestrian statue of 
Louis XIV in the Place des Victoires, in Paris, is probably 
his best-known extant work. Some of the sculptures of the 
Arc du Carrousel and the monument in the Place Vendome 
are by him, and several of his works, including the " Nymph 
Salmacis," a semi-nude female figure, are in the Louvre. 
Charles Mercier Dupaty (1771-1825) belonged to the same 
school. Jean Baptiste Giraud (178.3-1836) was another 
classicist; two works in the Louvre, however, a marble 
statue of a dog and a group, in wax, of a dead woman and 
2 a 353 



her two dead children, are reahstic. Jean Pierre Cortot 
(17S7-1S43) is best known by his "Apotheosis of Napoleon" 
on the Arc de Triomphe, a striking high relief, classical in 
conception and theatrical in poses and gestures. James 
Pradier (1792-1S.52) was a popular and prolific sculptor. 
His public monuments are many, among them the Pluses of 
the Fontaine Moliere, the figures of Victory in the spandrels 

of the Arc de Triomphe, the 
figures of Lille and Stras- 
bourg in the Place de la 
Concorde, and the twelve 
figures about the tomb of 
Napoleon in the Invalides, 
all in Paris. In such works 
he combines dignity with 
grace. In his works of less 
monumental character, 
chiefly nude female figures, 
such as the Atalanta in the 
Lou\Te or the Three Graces 
at Versailles, there is per- 
haps a trace of sensuality, 
in spite of the classic char- 
acter of his art. 

Rude. — Fran(^ois Rude 
(17S4-1S85) broke away 
from classic traditions and 
made sculpture dramatic, 
vital, and national. ]\Iany 
of his works, either originals or casts, are in the museum 
of his native Dijon. His most famous composition 
is the great group of figures in high relief on the x\rc de 
Triomphe, called "Le Depart." Here a winged goddess 
of war floats abo^"e a group of men of various ages and urges 
them with a shout to go forth to battle for their country. 
The costume of the men is, in part at least, Roman, and the 
idea of a goddess of war is of classic origin, but the intensity 
of expression, the dramatic vigor of action, and the powerful 

Figure 17S. — Jeanne d'Arc, 
Rude. The Louvre. Paris. 



feeling contained in the whole composition have nothing in 
common with the art of Canova or Thorvaldsen. Of Rude's 
other works the most characteristic are the Napoleon at 
Fixin, near Dijon, a half-recumbent figure nearly covered 
with a military cloak, the tomb of Godefroi Cavaignac, in the 
cemetery of Montmartre, the statue of Gaspard Monge, at 
Beaune, the statue of Marshal Ney, in Paris, and the " Jeanne 
d'Arc," now in the Louvre (Fig. 178). In all of these he 
shows himself a master of dramatic sculpture. Less impor- 
tant, because less characteristic, is the attractive statue of a 
Neapolitan fisher boy. In his latest works, a Hebe and a 
Cupid, in the museum at Dijon, Rude is less original and less 
successful. As a sculptor of great power and as the first of 
the French sculptors who made sculpture the vehicle for the 
expression of emotion and freed it from the conventions of the 
neo-classic school. Rude is one of the important figures of the 
nineteenth century. 

David d' Angers. — Pierre Jean David (1789-1856) is called 
David d'Angers, for he was born at Angers and is thus most 
easily distinguished from the painter David. His works are 
very numerous and are to be seen in many cities of France. 
His statue of the Great Conde, the plaster model of which 
was exhibited in 1817, was finished in marble in 1827 and is 
now at Versailles. This statue, a realistic figure of the young 
Conde in the costume he actually wore and in the act of 
throwing his general's baton over the walls of Freiburg, as- 
sured the sculptor's reputation. His works were sought from all 
parts of France, and sometimes they were hurriedly executed. 
But his vigorous, realistic style and the great number of his 
works make him an important factor in the development of 
sculpture. In the pediment group of the Pantheon, France, 
standing between seated figures of Liberty and History, 
holds out bunches of wreaths to the Frenchmen who have 
been distinguished in war and peace. The composition is not 
entirely successful, though the central figures are dignified and 
some of the portraits are good. The statue of Philopoemen, 
in the Louvre, is classic in theme, but in effect is a vigorous 
study of the nude male form in a rather contorted posture. 


One of his works, a statue of Jefferson, is in Philadelphia. 
The numerous medals, for which he was celebrated, vary- 
in excellence, but the best of them, for instance,' that of 
Napoleon, are strong and characteristic portraits. 

Barye. — Antoine Louis Barye (1796-1875) was almost 
exclusively a sculptor of animals. His small bronzes are 
uni^'e^sally popular and are to be seen in all museums of 
sculpture. His large works, the Tiger devouring a Crocodile, 
the Lion and Serpent, the Seated Lion, and the Centaur in 
Combat with a Lapith, all in the gardens of the Tuileries, are 
masterpieces of vigorous realism and actiqn. Barye ranks 
with Rude and David d'Angers as one who freed sculpture 
from the trammels of conventional classicism. "^ 

Fremiet. — Two pupils of Rude, Fremiet and Carpeaux, 
are among the most distinguished sculptors of the nineteenth 
century. Of the two Carpeaux is the more important, though 
somewhat the younger. Emmanuel Fremiet (1824-1900) 
was distinguished as a sculptor of animals, though after the 
middle of the century human figures played the more impor- 
tant part in his compositions. The wounded dog at the 
entrance to the Luxembourg gallery and the "Faun playing 
with Cub Bears" in the gallery are especially well known, 
because they are seen by almost all foreigners who visit 
Paris. The " jNIarine Horses " of the fountain of the Observa- 
tory, the " St. George and the Dragon," the equestrian statue 
of Duguesclin, and the standing statue of Meissonier are 
only a few of his works, in which vigor, power, and truth to 
life are admirably combined. 

Carpeaux. — Jean Baptiste Carpeaux (1827-1875) more 
than any other one sculptor carried on the work of Rude, 
David d'Angers, and Barye in making sculpture vital and 

' Contemporaries of Rude, David d'Anger, and Barj'e are Antoine 
Etex (1808-1888), Philippe Henri Lemaire (1798-1880). Bernard Gabriel 
Seurre (1795-1867), Jean Francois Theodore Gechter (1796-1845), Charles 
Marochetti (1805-1867), Svlvestre Joseph Bnin, Laitie, Georges Jacquot 
(1794-1874), Louis Denis Caillouette (1790-1868), all of whom did parts 
of the decoration of the Arc de Triomphe ; Augustin Alexandre Dumont 
(1801-1884), Francisque Joseph Duret (1804-1865), who belonged to the 
classic school ; and three pupils of Pradier : Francois Jouffroy (1806-1882), 
Jean Joseph Perraud (1819-1876), and Jean Baptiste Claude Eugene Guil- 
laume (1822-1904), of whom Guillaume is the most important. 


modern. His first important work, the "Neapolitan Fisher 
Boy" is humorous, HfeUke, and graceful. In 1858 Carpeaux 
conceived the idea of representing in a group of statuary the 
torment of Ugolino as described by Dante in the "Inferno," 
canto XXXIII. The director of tiie Academy at Rome 
refused him permission to undertake such a work, and its 
execution was delayed until 1861. The 
group consists of Ugolino and his four 
sons, all nude and all, except the son who 
lies dead, in more or less contorted pos- 
tures. The anatomical knowledge dis- 
played is remarkable, and the group 
makes a powerful, though unpleasant, 
impression. In the decoration of the 
Pavilion de Flore of the Louvre and that 
of the Opera-house in Paris Carpeaux 
produced brilliant examples of very high 
relief, and the group which crowns the 
Fountain of the Observatory (the four 
continents, represented as nude women, 
holding up the celestial globe) is full of 
grace, movement, and power. Carpeaux 
died before he was fifty years of age, but 
his influence, not only in France, but also 
in other countries, was deservedly great. 

Paul Z)m6ow'. — Paul Dubois (1829- 
1905) was a sculptor of great refinement. 
The finish of his statues is exquisite. He 
was evidently influenced by the works of Donatello and 
other Italians of the fifteenth century, and his work possesses 
something of the charm of the Early Renaissance, combined 
with the realism of modern times. His "Florentine Singer" 
(Fig. 179) in the Luxembourg, the tomb of General Lamori- 
ciere at Nantes, and the Jeanne d'Arc at Rheims (replica in 
Paris) are perhaps his most widely known works and are 
characteristic of the variety and charm of his style. ^ 

' None of the pupils of David d'Angers attained the eminence of Fre- 
miet or Carpeaux. The most distinguished among them are : Denis Foy- 

FlGTJRE 179. —A 
Florentine Singer, by 
Dubois. The Luxem- 
bourg, Paris. 


Falguierc. Chapii. — Jean Alexandre Joseph Falguiere 
(1831-1890) is probably best known by his bronze "Victor m 
the Cock Fight," a nude boy carrying a cock. This is in the 
Luxembourg, as is also the marble "Tarcissius, Christian 
Martyr," a recimabent figure of a boy dying in pain, but 
happy in his consciousness of salvation. These are early 
works ; in his later statues he shows exceptional clearness 
in expression, ability to seize the essential points of a char- 
acter or a situation, and appreciation of sentiment. The 
rapidity with which he executed his very numerous com- 
missions led to some carelessness and diminished the value 
of some of his later works ; the great group of Progress over- 
throwing Error, in the Pantheon, is striking, but hardly 
successfid as a whole. In the figure of St. Vincent de Paul 
Falguiere shows his mastery of e.xpression and his apprecia- 
tion of character, and in several works of his latest period, 
such as "The Dancer" or the Diana, he appears as an 
exceptionally skilful modeller of the nude female form. 
Henri INIichel Antoine Chapu (1833-1891) is best known by 
his Jeanne d'Arc, a young peasant girl crouching on the 
ground with an expression at once serious, visionary, and 
determined. The beautifid figure of Youth which forms part 
of the monument to Regnault in the Ecole des Beaux Arts, 
the moniunent to Berrier in the Palais de Justice, and numer- 
ous funerary monuments exhibit Chapu as a sculptor of 
dignified and impressive figiu-es. His portrait busts and 
medals are justly admired. 

Dalou. — Jules Dalou (1838-1902) is the artist of the great 
and striking group "The Triumph of the Republic" in the 
Place de la Nation at Paris (Fig. 180). The figure of the 

atier (1793-1863), whose connection with David d'Angers is not certain; 
his most noted work is the equestrian Jeanne d'Arc at Orleans ; Antoine 
Auguste Preault (1809-1879), best linown for his medallions; Jean Bonas- 
sieux (1810-1892), the author of the colossal Mrgin at Le Puy; he was 
most successful in works of a religious character ; Pierre Jules CaveHer 
(1814-1894), whose works are dignified, simple, and finely executed; Aime 
Millet (1819-1891), an artist of ability, who was popular in his day, but 
created nothing of surpassing merit; Carrier-Belleuse (1824-1887), the 
author of some refined and charming works of sculpture, such as the Hebe 
in the Luxembourg, but whose chief acti\dty was in designing models for 
the Sevres porcelain factory. 


Republic stands upon a ball supported on a structure that is 
hidden by leaves and volutes ; the whole rising from a chariot 
drawn by two lions. An almost nude male figure holding a 
torch rests upon the lions ; other figures symbolize Labor, 
Justice, and Fecundity, and the last two are accompanied by 
Cupids. The composition as a whole is not clear, and the 
attitudes of some of the figures are justly criticised, but the 
figure of the Republic is dignified, beautiful, and impressive. 

Figure 180. — The Republic, by Dalou. Paris. 

In his other works, as in this, Dalou shows the influence of 
ancient art, but this is never so strong as to detract from his 
originality. The relief in the Chambre des Deputes, which 
represents Mirabeau defying the orders of the king, is a 
masterly composition. 

Barrias. — Louis Ernest Barrias (1841-1905) was an artist 
of power and originality, though perhaps not of the highest 
order of genius. He executed many public monuments, the 
most conspicuous of which is the monument to Victor Hugo 


in the Place Motor Hugo, Paris. The combination of the 
seated figure of the poet with the severely classic pedestal 
and the allegorical figures in somewhat violent attitudes is not 
entirely happy, though the figures themselves are fine in 
design and execution. Of his many other works perhaps 
"The First Funeral," in the Luxembourg, is the most im- 
pressive. The figures of Adam and E-ve bearing the dead 
body of Abel are made to typify the grief which the death of 
those we love brings to us all. In his "Nature disclosing 
Herself," in the Luxembourg, Barrias makes effective use 
of colored marbles. 

Mercie. — ]\Iarius J. Antonin !Mercie (b. 1845) is a sculptor 
of unusual ability. His "David," in the Luxembourg, has 
the charm of a work of Donatello, his "Gloria Victis," a 
magnificent group of Fame bearing aloft the body of one who 
has fallen in battle, is inspiring and beautiful, his "Quand 
meme," representing an Alsatian mother who has seized her 
dead son's musket to defend her country, appeals most 
strongly to the patriotic feelings. Several of his fimereal 
monmnents, especially those of Louis Philippe and his 
cjueen at DreiLx, are masterpieces. 

Baiiholome. Puech. ~Faul Albert Bartholome (b. 1S48) 
is known chiefly on account of the great ^Monimient to the 
Dead (Fig. 181), at Pere Lachaise, and the monument to 
Jean Jacques Rousseau, ui the Pantheon. The former is the 
most consummate representation of the grief caused by death. 
Li the upper part a young man and a young woman enter 
an opening over which is the inscription Ait.v Morfs. Only 
their backs are seen as they enter. At the sides are groups of 
mourners. In another opening below are the corpses of a 
man, a woman, and a child, upon whom a crouching woman 
with outstretched arms is gazing in an agony of grief. The 
entire composition is terrible in its uncompromising realism, 
but at the same time dignified and beautiful. The monu- 
ment to Rousseau possesses the dignity and beauty without 
the emotional intensity. In other works Bartholome shows 
good technique, skLU in composition, and appreciation of 
beauty. Denys Puech (b. ISGi^^ is another whose work 


entitles him to special mention. His portrait busts are ad- 
mirable, and his imaginative works and monuments possess 
in an unusual degree the qualities of sentiment and charm. ^ 

FiGDKE ISl. — Moimmcnt to the Dead, V)j Bfirtholom«. I'au-i 

I Other sculptors of recent years and the present time are : Pierre Charles 
Simart (1806-1857), classic in taste ; Jean Baptiste August Clesinger (1814- 
1883), who excelled in statues and in representation of animals; Emile 
Eugene Thomas (1817-1882), best in busts and religious subjects; Gabriel 
Jules Thomas (1824-1905), an excellent sculptor in all branches of his art, 
though not very original; Mathurin Moreau (b. 1822), a prolific sculptor 
who possesses admirable technique ; J. L6on G&ome (1824-1904), an artist 
of excellent technique, who used color to some extent in his statuary ; Gus- 
tave Adolphe Desire CJrauk (1827-1905), an artist of somewhat classic bent, 
best known by his dignified "Coligny" in Paris; Emile Chatrousse (1830- 
1889), a prolific sculptor, very popular in his day, possessed of good tech- 
nique, but not much originality; Frederic Auguste Bartholdi (1834-1904), 
whose Lion of Belfort and "Switzerland succoring Strasbourg" (at Bale) 
prove that the "Liberty enlightening the World" (in New York Harbor) 
and even the statue of La Fayette (in New York) do not give a fair measure 
of his ability ; Jean Paul Aub6 (b. 1837) , author of the rather bizarre monu- 
ment to Gambetta, in Paris, and other works, sometimes more or less ec- 
centric ; Eugene Delaplanche (1838-1891), especially noted for nude female 
figures ; Victor Peter (b. 1840) ; Jean Gautherin (b. 1840), sculptor of public 
monuments and ideal figures; Emile Andrfe Boisseau (b. 1842), a skilful 
sculptor, especially of nude figures, who has made trials of polychromy ; 
Mme. Marie Cazin (b. 1844) ; Charles Kene de Saint-Marceau (b. 1845), 
author of "Genius guarding the Secret of the Tomb," in the Luxembourg, 
of the monument to Daudet, in the Champs filysees, and other works which 


A ugusie Cain. Georges Gardet. — Tw"o sculptors of animals 
deserve mention here : Auguste Cain (1822-190-i), whose 
works rival those of Barye in vigor, truth to Hfe, and evidence 
of accurate observation, and Georges Gardet (b. 1863) who 
represents animals in a more playfid manner than Barj^e and 
Cain, and with equal truth. 

Rodin. — But the French scidptor who exerts the greatest 
influence upon the art of the present time, both in France and 
in other countries, is Auguste Rodin (b. 1S40). He was a 
pupil of Barye, then worked for six years in the atelier of 
Carrier-Belleuse, after which he was in Brussels, where he 
worked under Van Rasbourg on the fa9ade of the Brussels 
Bourse ; he was also for a time employed as designer and 
modeller at the porcelain factors- at Sevres. 

Carpeaux had made movement the chief element in his 
sculpture, and for Rodin too movement is often the most im- 
portant thing. He is also a master of pathos and sentiment. 
He has been at different times much influenced by ancient art 
and by the French art of the ^Middle Ages, but throughout he 
has striven after truth — not photographic truth in the 
reproduction of the facts of natiu-e as presented by his model, 

show originality and good technique; Andre Joseph Allar (b. 1S45), of 
somewhat academic tendency; Jean Antoine Injalbert (b. lS4o'). distin- 
guished for fine busts and admirable treatment of the nude ; Theophile 
Barrau (b. 1S4S), a sculptor of the nude; Alphonse Amedee Cordonnier 
(b. 184S) ; Jean Antoine Marie Idrac (1S49-1SS4). whose early death re- 
moved a sculptor of brilliant promise: Leon Eugene Longepied (1849— 
ISSS) ; Alfred Boucher (b. 1S50). a brilliant sculptor of the nude, both male 
and female, in motion and in repose ; Laurent Honore Marqueste (b. 1850), 
successful and popular, chiefly, though not exclusively, a sculptor of the 
nude ; Edmond Emile PejTiot (h. 1850), author of good public mommients ; 
Leon Fagel (b. 1851), whose busts and statues are well wrought, but exhibit 
no marked originaHty; Gustave Frederic Michel (b. 1851), who has pro- 
duced some excellent statues and decorative work, but is best known for 
his portrait busts; Antonin Jean Carles (b. lSo3), whose early statues are 
graceful and delicate, those of later date more powerful, and whose portrait 
busts are excellent; Charles Raoul Verlet (b. 1857), a popular artist, ex- 
cellent teacher. <ind author of several public monuments ; Louis Auguste 
Theodore Ri"vi^re (1S57— 1912), whose small groups of metals, marbles, and 
colored stones in combination are much prized ; Jean Auguste Dampt (b. 
1S5S), whose works, often small, are of marble, bronze, ivory, and combina- 
tions of different materials; Henri Desire Gauquie (b. ISoS), whose style 
is easy, attractive, even pla^-ful at times ; Roger-Bloch, the sculptor of the 
poor ; Francois Raoul Larche (b. 1860) : Francois Leon Sicard (b. 1S62) ; 
Georges Bareau (b. 1866); Victor Joseph Jean Ambroise (b. 1867). The 
list might be greatly extended by the inclusion of a great number of younger 
sculptors, among whom are many able artists. 


but truth in the expression of his own thought. As a result 
of this striving, and of his own development, his works vary 
greatly in style and in technique. Some are exquisitely 
finished, some are at first sight mere rough sketches, and 
others are left partly in the rough and partly finished with 
great care. His first work "The Man with the Broken 
Nose" (1864) aroused opposition on account of its realism, 
and the "St. John" (1879) was criticised severely for the same 
reason and for its walking posture. Nevertheless the power 
of these works was appreciated by 
many even then. "The Kiss" 
(1898) is finely modelled and full 
of sentiment, "The Burghers of 
Calais" (clay 1889, bronze 1895) is 
a wonderfidly realistic presentation 
of the supposed feelings of the 
bm-ghers who walked forth to die 
for their native city, " The Thinker " 
(1904) is a powerful embodiment 
of the brooding thought of primi- 
tive man (Fig. 182). The portrait 
of Balzac, a short, stout man in a 
loose robe, such as Balzac actually 
wore in writing, was rejected as 
unfinished ; and indeed it is un- 
finished, if to be finished is to have 
the details worked out as they 
are in nature. Here nearly everything is left rough, and 
no accessories or unessentials are even indicated. The 
result is impressive, if viewed from the proper distance, but 
incomprehensible to the layman unless sufficiently removed. 
In his later works Rodin has usually aimed to suppress 
unessential details, he being, of course, the judge as to what 
is and is not essential. He has attempted to express his 
thoughts in solid material, without giving to the material a 






Figure 182.— The Thinker, 
by Rodin. 1 

1 The illustration is from the small bronze in the Metropolitan Museum 
in New York, which is an original work of the sculptor no less than the large 
bronze in Paris. 


form that is definitely worked out in detail. As a result his 
thought is often difficult to understand. Vigorous, powerful, 
original, and often beautiful as the art of Rodin is, its effect 
upon his contemporaries has not always been good, for his 
freedom from all academic restraint, his daring employment 
of contorted attitudes and of contrasts of light and shade, and 
his habit of leaving unfinished what is for him unessential — 
all these peculiarities become gross defects when imitated by 
men of less genius than his own. It is not without some 
justice that Rodin has been held in a measure responsible 
for the \' agarics of some of his younger contemporaries. 


The Xeo-classic School. — In Belgium the pseudo-classic 
style replaced the rococo as elsewhere in Eiu-ope, and with 
much the same results, though the best of the Belgian classi- 
cists produced works somewhat less lifeless than those of other 
countries. The six Geefs brothers were among the most 
noted sculptors of the classic school in Belgium, and of these 
the most gifted was the eldest, Guillamne Geefs (1805-188.3). 
In his style something of the exuberance of the rococo 
remains to enliven the academic calm. He produced a great 
number of tombs, pulpits, statues, busts, and groups ; among 
them the statue of General Beliard, the tomb of Count Frederic 
de Merode in Ste. Gudule, the statue of Leopold I, and the 
romantic and sentimental group of a nude woman and a lion, 
all in Brussels, may be mentioned. Joseph Geefs (1808- 
1885) was quite as prolific as his brother Guillaume, but not 
quite as able, in spite of his good technique. Of his mmierous 
works the monument of Leopold I at Antwerp is most 
deserving of mention. Louis Eugene Simonis (1810-1882) is 
best known by his spirited equestrian statue of Godfrey of 
Bouillon, at Brussels, but his other works, which are many, 
exhibit the same vigorous and dramatic st^s'le. Pierre de 
Vigne (1812-1877), Charles August Fraikin (1817-1893), and 
Joseph Jacques Ducaju (1823-1891) are among the most 
important sculptors of the period when the newly acquired 


independence of Belgimn gave a fresh impetus to sculpture, 
especially in the creation of public monuments. In their 
works the classic style is modified by romantic and rococo 

The New School. De Vigne. Van der Stappen. Billens. 
■ — The new Belgian school, beginning about 1880, is more 
realistic, that is, more in touch with real life, than the school 
which preceded it. The manifestations of this realism are 
as various as the personalities of the sculptors. Paul de 
Vigne (1843-1901) was a poetic artist, who had been much 
impressed in Italy by Donatello and in France by the modern 
French school. His figures express by turns tenderness, 
revery, religious or patriotic fervor; they are always irre- 
proachable in form and graceful in pose. Among them the 
"Immortality" and the "Poverella" in the Brussels museum, 
the "Triumph of Art" in the front of the Palais des Beaux- 
Arts in Brussels, and the " Brej^del and De Coninck" at Bruges 
may be mentioned. Charles van der Stappen (1843-1910) 
showed greater vigor than Paul de Vigne, but was, like him, 
a portrayer of human feelings and sentiments. His "Man 
with the Sword" in the museum at Brussels and his "Death 
of Ompdrailles" are powerful and characteristic works. 
Julien Dillens (1849-1904) showed good ability in his monu- 
mental groups, such as the "Justice" in the Palais de Justice 
at Brussels, and charming sentiment in his funereal monu- 
ments. These three artists, and some others among their 
contemporaries, still exiiibit the lingering influence of the 
classic school, though not its academic coldness. 

Realists. De Groot. Cathier. Meimier. — The realists 
in the stricter sense make the laborer the chief subject of then- 
art. Guillaume de Groot (b. 1839) glorified manual labor in 
a powerful dramatic figure in the Brussels museum, and 
Cathier (1830-1892) represented in 1872 a group of workmen 
at the base of the Cockerill monument in Brussels, but the 
man who made the glorification of labor the chief end of 
Belgian sculpture, the most powerful, original, and complete 
sculptor of the realistic school, was Constantin Meunier (1831- 
1904). As a young man he was for a time a sculptor, then he 



worked for many years exclusively as a painter, returning to 
sculpture in 1885. In his statues, such as "The Sower," 
"The Smith," "The Stevedore" (Fig. 183), and "Firedamp" 
(Le Grisou), in his reliefs representing laborers in various 
industries, he showed himself a master who, like the sculptors 
of the great days of Greece, imitated nature with complete 
fidelity, yet not the individual person, but the type, and who 

endowed the type with the 
reality of life. His subjects 
seem to have little in common 
with those of the ancients ; but 
his spirit is the spirit of the 
great masters. 

Lamheaux. ViiK^otte. Lalaing. 
Other Sculptors. — Jef Lambeaux 
(1859-1908) is not so much the 
sculptor of labor as of violence 
and passions. Indeed his most 
extensive single work, a great 
relief in the temple in the Pare 
du Cinquantenaire at Brussels, 
bears the title "Himian Pas- 
sions." It is a powerful, emo- 
tional work, impressive in its 
daring freedom from restraint, 
its energy, and its originality. 
Similar qualities, though not so 
strongly marked, are seen in his 
groups, "The Kiss" in the mu- 
seum at Antwerp and "The Wrestlers" in the museum at 
Brussels, and in the beautiful "Fontaine de Brabon" in 
the Grand' Place at Antwerp. Thomas Vin^otte (b. 1850) 
possesses a strong and delicate technique and great love 
of truth. His portraits are excellent. He has filled the 
pediments of the museums at Antwerp and Brussels and 
that of the Palais de Justice at Brussels with impressive, 
though perhaps somewhat crowded, reliefs, and his statues 
are vigorous as well as attractive. Count Jacques de 

Figure 183. — The Steve- 
dore, by Meuoier. The Luxem- 


Lalaing, better known, perhaps, as a painter, showed liim- 
self a sculptor of great dramatic power in his monument to 
the British officers who fell at Waterloo and his "Fighting 
Horses" in Brussels ; his statue of La Salle in Chicago is also 
excellent. Several recent Belgian sculptors have distin- 
guished themselves by their representations of animals; 
among them, besides Vin^otte and Lalaing, are Leon Mejnon 
(1847-1898) and Josue Dupon (b. 1864). Other sculptors 
worthy of mention are Desenfans (b. 1845), Isidore de Rudder 
(b. 1855), Pierre Braeck (b. 1859), Jules Lagae (b. 1862), 
especially gifted as a portrait sculptor, and Charles Samuel 
(b. 1862). Delicate and charming statuettes of ivory have 
been carved by Julien Dillens, Charles Samuel, Charles van 
der Stappen, Josue Dupon, and Alphonse van Beuren. 




The Classical Revival. Dannecker. — In Germany the 
rococo style had reigned with absokite power in the eigh- 
teenth century, and under its sway much rich decorative 
sculpture had been produced, but little that had a national 
character or genuine sculptural significance. In the latter 
part of the eighteenth centurj' and the beginning of the 
nineteenth a revival of classic art took place under the 
influence of Winckelmann, Lessing, and other scholars. 
The German sculptors looked to Rome for instruction and 
inspiration. Johann Heinrich Dannecker (1758-1841) was 
the head of the classic school at Stuttgart. He studied under 
Pajou at Paris, then went to Rome where Canova was re- 
garded as the great master. Here he was influenced also by 
the Swiss classical sculptor Alexander Trippel. Dannecker's 
works are graceful, but, like nearly all works of the neo- 
classic school in all countries, somewhat lifeless. The best 
known among them is the Ariadne on a Panther, at Frankfort. 
The most important of Dannecker's associates at Stuttgart 
was P. J. Scheffauer (1756-1808). 

Schools of Berlin, Dresden, and Munich. — Classic sculp- 
ture was not confined to Stuttgart, but was produced by 
numerous second-rate sculptors in different places during 
the period of the ascendency of Canova and Thorvaldsen. 
Soon, however, three schools with more or less clearly marked 
differences developed at Berlin, Dresden, and Munich. 
The work of the Berlin school was chiefly historical and 
tended toward realism, that of the Munich school was ro- 
mantic, and that of the Dresden school intermediate between 
the two others. 




Schadoiv. — Johann Gottfried Schadow (1764-1850) was a 
pupil of J. B. Antoine Tassaert (1729-1788), a Fleming who 
had been at the court of Louis XV and was called to Berhn 
by Frederick the Great in 1774. In 1785 Schadow went to 
Rome and came under the 
influence of classic art, the 
study of which gave his 
work a tendency toward 
simplicity, though he still 
retained a close connection 
with the rococo style. His 
statues of Ziethen (Fig. 
184), Leopold of Dessau, and 
King Frederick are strong 
works, well modelled, no 
longer pseudo-classic, but 
German in spirit as well 
as costume (though the 
soldiers in the reliefs of 
the pedestal of the monu- 
ment of Leopold are in 
Roman garb). The group 
of Queen Louise and her 
sister, at Charlottenburg, is 
simple and somewhat senti- 
mental, with rounded figures 
and soft drapery. His later 
works are less simple and 
seem to show a stronger in- 
fluence of ancient art. The 
quadriga on the Branden- 
burg gate in Berlin is spirited 
and effective. In his ideal 
works Schadow was less suc- 
cessful, from the point of view of the present day, than 
in his portrait statues. Schadow's pupils produced nothing 
of great importance. The best known among them are 
his eldest son Rudolf Schadow (1786-1822), whose works are 


FiGOBE 184. — Von Ziethen, by 
Schadow. Berhn, 


rather insipid ideal figures, and Christian Friedrich Tieck 
(177(3-1851) to whom the mythological reliefs in the Royal 
Theatre in Berlin are due. 

Ranch. — Christian Daniel Ranch (1777-1857) was 
Schadow's successor as the head of the Berlin school. His 
finest work is the monument to Frederick the Great in Beriin, 
which is impressive, full of life and dignity, and carefully 
modelled. His monuments of Generals Billow and Scharn- 
horst in Berlin, of Albrecht Diirer at Nuremberg, and of 
Maximilian I at Munich are good examples of his powerful 
and dignified style. His monument of Queen Louise at 
Charlottenburg is greatly admired as a portrait and as a 
presentation of the true German tj-pe of womanhood. Al- 
though well modelled, it is, however, somewhat sentimental. 

Others of the Berlin School. — Rauch's best pupU was 
Friedrich Drake (1805-1882), whose chief work is probably 
the equestrian statue of Emperor William I at Cologne; 
other statues by him are those of Rauch and Schinkel at 
Berlin. He followed closely in the footsteps of his master. 
Gustav Blaser (lSl.3-1874) and Friedrich Hermann Schievel- 
bein (1817-1867) were also close followers of Rauch, though 
Schievelbein was more influenced than Rauch by the art of 
antiquity, Canova, and Thorvaldsen. August Kiss (1804- 
1865), also a pupil of Rauch, worked only in metal. His 
most famous work is the spirited group of a mounted Amazon 
fighting with a panther. His group of St. George and the 
Dragon, in a courtyard of the royal palace in Berlin, is also 
a fine and spirited composition. Albert Wolff (1814-1892) 
modelled the " Horseman attacked by a Lion," which stands 
as a companion piece to the Amazon by Kiss at the entrance 
to the Museum in Berlin ; another of his works is the eques- 
trian statue of King Ernst August at Hanover. 

The Dresden School. Rietschel, Hdhnel, Schilling. — Ernst 
Friedrich August Rietschel (1804-1861), a pupil of Rauch, 
who studied also at Rome, was the head of the Dresden 
school. His early work is somewhat lifeless, but he gradually 
freed himself from the influence of Rauch and of the neo- 
classic school and developed a more realistic and vigorous 


style. His most widely known work is probably the monu- 
ment to Goethe and Schiller at Weimar, which is strong and 
dignified. His statue of Brunswick is refined 
and well executed. Something of the romantic spirit ap- 
pears in the monument to Luther at Worms. Rietschel 
was also the author of works of other kinds, such as the 
Pieta at Potsdam, in which he exhibits ability to express 
religious sentiment. On the whole he was the best of the 

FiGnRE 185. — The Rhine and the Moselle. From the Germania-Denkmal, 
by Schilling. Rildesheim. 

German sculptors of his day. Ernst Hahnel (b. 1811), 
who was trained in Italy and in Munich, was a sculptor of 
considerable ability, especially in reliefs. M8st of his works 
are in Dresden. Some of them are classic in style, but the 
romantic spirit appears in others. The reliefs on the pedestal 
of his monument to Beethoven, at Bonn, show the influence 
of the romantic school of Munich. Johannes Schilling 
(1828-1910) shows, like Hahnel, the influence of his classic 
training, especially in his earlier works, such as the groups of 


Night and Morning on the terrace in Dresden. His colossal 
Germania at Riidesheim, with the figures and reliefs of its 
pedestal (Fig. 185), is not entirely free from classicism, 
though its most striking qualities are the peculiar combination 
of sentiment and ostentation which pervaded German art 
after the war of 1870-1871. The monument to Arminius 
(the " Hermanndenkmal ") in the Teutoburg Forest near 
Detmold is a simpler and more impressive work by Ernst 
von Bandel (1800-1876). 

The Munich School. Schwanthaler, Eherhard. — At Munich 
the chief sculptor of the early part of the nineteenth century 
was Ludwig Schwanthaler (1802-1848), who studied in 
Rome and was for a time a docile member of the neo-classic 
school. Later he treated' national subjects in a romantic 
style, in imitation rather of mediaeval than of ancient art. 
He was much employed by King Ludwig of Bavaria, exe- 
cuted a large number of reliefs and statues in Munich, the 
colossal bronze Bavaria in front of the Ruhmeshalle, and the 
group of the "Hermannschlacht" in one of the pediments of 
the Walhalla near Ratisbon. He exerted great influence, 
though his work is' not especially refined or powerful. He 
appealed to the rising national feeling of the Germany of 
his time. The way had been prepared for him at Munich 
by Konrad Eberhard (1768-1859), who had studied at Rome 
and executed a number of works in the neo-classic style, 
but turned to religious sculpture in imitation of mediaeval 

Revolt from Classicism. Begas. Uphites. — Throughout the 
first half of the nineteenth century, and indeed until well 
into the second half, the prevailing style of sculpture was 
the pseudo-classic, for even the relative realism of the Berlin 
school was strongly, if unconsciously, influenced by the 
authority of Canova, Thorvaldsen, and their followers. 
The beginning of more independent work was made by 
Reinhold Begas (b. 1831), who broke away from classi- 
cism and drew his inspiration from nature and from the works 
of Michael Angelo. His figures are full of life and animation, 
he excels in the rendering of textures, but his work is, for 


the most part, less akin to that of Michael Angelo than to 
that of Bernini's successors. He strains for effect, and in- 
troduces too many and too various decorative motifs. 
Among his very numerous large works, the Neptune foun- 
tain, the Monument of Emperor William I, and the Schiller 
monument, all in Berlin, are perhaps the best. Some of 
his portrait busts are admirable. The tendency to ostenta- 
tion visible in many of his works is still more evident in those 
of some of his many pupils, some of which may be studied 
in the Siegesallee in Berlin. The most distinguished of his 
pupils is Joseph Uphues (1850-1910), among whose works 
are the Moltke monument in Berlin and the PVederick the 
Great in the Siegesallee (replica in Washington). The 
realistic tendency was represented at this time in Munich 
by Caspar Zumbusch (b. 1831). 

The New Sculpture. — In Germany, as in England, the 
closing decades of the nineteenth century saw a great awaken- 
ing of public interest in sculpture and a remarkable increase 
in the number of sculptors who seriously and conscientiously 
work for the progress of their art. The new German sculp- 
ture, like the new sculpture in other countries, is primarily 
realistic and naturalistic, striving to present things as they 
are, or, in some instances, as they seem to be to one who 
examines them not too .closely. Mingled with realism is 
sometimes a touch of learned pedantry, as when Hahn 
imitates the drapery of an Athenian figure of about 500 
B.C., or Hoetger the style of the sculptures of the cathedral 
at Strassburg. The Roman costume given by Tuaillon to 
the equestrian statue of the Emperor Frederick I at Bremen 
is almost without parallel in recent sculpture. The German 
tendency to theorize has led in some instances to the pro- 
duction of bizarre or, as the case may be, academic works, 
and the experiments that have been made with polychromy 
and the employment of various materials have not always 
led to good results. But in spite of occasional errors and 
failures, German sculpture of recent years is vigorous and 
earnest, thoughtful, progressive, and often inspired by a 
distinctively national sentiment which lends it a peculiar 



charm. The foreign sculptors whose influence is most 
clearly seen are Rodin and Meunier. 

Only the leaders among German sculptors of recent years 
can be metioned here. 

Adolf Hildebrand (b. 1847) has produced many works, 
among them the Wittelsbach fountain at Munich, the 
Reinhard fountain at Strassburg, the equestrian statue of 
Bismarck at Bremen, several other public monuments, 

numerous portraits, re- 
liefs, and ideal figures. 
His work is realistic in 
the best sense of the 
word, is well conceived 
and carefully executed. 
Robert Diez (b. 1844) 
has produced a number 
of works, chiefly public 
monuments, but his im- 
portance lies in his long 
and successful activity 
as a teacher in Dresden. 
Max Klinger (b. 1857), 
who is also a painter 
and etcher, is a sculptor 
of no little power ; he is 
chiefly known, however, 
as the most noted advo- 
cate of polychrome sculp- 
ture. Some of his colored statues are very successful. The 
most famous of his works is probably the Beethoven monu- 
ment in Leipzig. Ernst Moritz Geyger (b. 1861), Louis 
Tuaillon (b. 1862), and August Gauf (b. 1869) are known 
chiefly as sculptors of animals, though Geyger and Tuaillon 
have modelled also many human figures (Fig. 186). Georg 
Wrba (b. 1872), also a remarkable animal sculptor, is the 
artist of numerous fine fountains and other works. Hugo 
Lederer (b. 1871) is distinguished for his massive and power- 
ful public monuments, chief of which is the Bismarck monu- 

FiGUEE 186. — Mounted Amazon, by 
Tuaillon. Berlin. 


ment in Hamburg. August Hudler (1868-1905) was an 
exceedingly able realistic sculptor, some of whose later works 
(e.g. the Ecce Homo and the David) are dignified and full 
of restrained sentiment. Benno Elkan (b. 1877) has been 
greatly influenced by Bartholome and Rodin. Among his 
best works are medals and small bronze reliefs. He has also 
experimented with polyehromy. Hermann Hahn (b. 1868) 
is especially successful with portrait statues, busts, and 


The Neo-classic Period. — In the early part of the nine- 
teenth century Spanish sculptors joined those of other coun- 
tries in producing academic allegories and mythological 
works. Jose Alvarez (1768-1827) is known by his "Defence 
of Saragossa" (1817) and his monument of "The Second of 
May," spirited works of patriotic significance. Other 
artists of the early part of the century are Jose Alvarez y 
Bougel (1805-1830), son of Jose Alvarez, Ramon Barba 
(1767-1831), whose statue of Cervantes in Madrid is well 
known, the brothers Bellver, Francisco (b. 1812), Mariano 
(1817-1876), Jose (1824-1869), and their relative Ricardo 
Bellver (b. 1845), Jose Piquer (d. 1871), Jose Vilehes, 
Medardo Sanmarti, who departs from the classic and aca- 
demic precedents in his charming statue "The Fisher," 
Agapito and Venancio Vallmitjana, Elias, Martin, Andres 
Aleu, and Juan Figueres. 

The Rise of Naturalism. — An approach to naturalism is 
seen in the works of Ponciano Ponzano (1813-1877), Manuel 

' other German sculptors of the present time, some of whom are not 
inferior to those mentioned in the text, are the following : Artur Volkmann 
(b. 1851), Hermann Lang (b. 1856), Franz Stuck (b. 1863), Paul Peterich 
(b. 1864), Emil Dittler (b. 1868), Richard Engelmann (b. 1868), Hans 
Luetkens (b. 1869), Ernst Barlach (b. 1870), Franz Metzner (b. 1870), 
Wilhelm Riedisser (b. 1870), Ignatius Taschner (b. 1871), Ludwig Habich 
(b. 1872), Theodor von Gosen (b. 1873), Fritz Hoernlein (b. 1873), Johannes 
Bossard (b. 1874), Bernhard Hoetger (b. 1874), Georg Kolbe (b. 1877), 
Richard Langer (b. 1879), Josef HoefHer (b. 1879), Hermann Haller (b. 
1880), Wilhelm Lehmbruck (b. 1881), Hans Schwegerle (b. 1882), and 
Richard Adolf Zutt (b. 1887). All of these had attained considerable 
reputation before 1914. 


0ms, Eduardo Barron, Jose Pagnucci, Sabine de Medina, 
Angel Diaz, and Jose ^lonserrat. This tendency becomes 
more pronounced in the later part of the century, and the 
modern Spanish sculpture is frankly naturalistic. At the 
head of the innovators stands INIariano Benlliure, whose 
group of Isabella receiving Christopher Columbus (1892) 
is the best known of his many excellent works. With him 
Jose Alcoverro and Jose de Gandaris should be mentioned; 
the latter is especially a sculptor of female figures. 

Spanish Sculptors of the Present Time. — Spanish sculptors 
of recent years and the present time are numerous, for in 
Spain, as in most other countries of Europe, sculpture has 
become more popular than it was in the earlier part of the 
nineteenth centiu-y. Their work is earnest and serious; 
they strive after truth, and, although influenced by Rodin 
and other French sculptors, are not lacking in sincerity and 


Small Bronzes. Prince Troubetsl-oy. — Sculpture in Russia 
has hardly existed until recent times. The church is hostile 
to sculpture in the round, the state has forbidden the erec- 
tion of bronze statues except in honor of emperors or great 
officials, marble is lacking, and the climate is, at least in 
the great centres, so harsh as to discourage the erection of 
marble or stone monuments in the open air. Nevertheless 
Russian sculptors have produced in the nineteenth and twen- 
tieth centuries a considerable number of interesting works, 
chiefly small bronzes. Lancere's subjects are chiefly eques- 
trian — Cossacks, Arabs, or others, with their horses ; Lie- 
berich (b. 1828) was a skilful sculptor of animals; Samon- 

' Among them are Francisco Pages y Serratora, Andres Rodriguez, 
Jose Gragera, Agustin Querol, Aniceto Marinas, Miguel Blay, Fuxa y Leal, 
Miguel Embil, Julio Echeandia. the brothers Luciano and Miguel Osle, 
Rafael Atche, Jose Rejiies, Antonio Alsina, Llimona y Brugera, Susillo, 
Juan Vancell, Miguel Angel TrUles, Jose Campeny, Gabriel Borras AbeUa, 
Juan Samso, Jose Gines, Enrique Claraso, Gustavo Obiols, Zamorano 
Alcaide, Carbonell, Lorenzo CouUant-Valera, Pedro Estany y Capella, 
Cipriano Folgueras, Ecequeil Ruiz Martinez, and the list might be still 
further lengthened. 


off, Posene, Naps, and'Gratchoff chose chiefly Russian genre 
subjects; Feodor Kamensky and Gensburg have shown 
abiHty and a sense of beauty in graceful and expressive figures. 
Prince Paul Troubetskoy is a powerful, original, and versatile 
sculptor, whose works, ranging from colossal groups to stat- 
uettes, are full of life and energy. He is a realist and an 
impressionist, a distinguished representative of two of the 
strongest tendencies of the present day. Born (1866) in 
Italy of an American mother, and now living in the United 
States, he is a cosmopolitan rather than a Russian artist. 


The Classical Revival. Flaxman. Baily. — The revival of 
classicism in English sculpture was initiated by John Flax- 
man (1755-1826). His early works are of little importance, 
but in 1787 he went to Italy, where he remained for seven 
years subject to the influence of Canova and of the conditions 
by which Canova himself was affected. From that time 
his work was entirely in the neo-classic style. His best work 
was done in making designs for Josiah Wedgewood, the 
potter, and in drawing illustrations to the poems of Homer 
and Dante. Some of his marble reliefs are designed with 
classic purity and possess a cold and formal beauty; his 
larger works of sculpture are less successful. His chief 
pupil was Edward H. Baily (1788-1867), who combined the 
classic manner with religious themes in his Eve at the Foun- 
tain and Eve Listening ; the Nelson on the column in Trafal- 
gar square is his work. 

Chanfrey. Westmacott. Gibson. — Sir Francis Legatt 
Chantrey (1781-1842) produced many sepulchral monu- 
ments, busts, and statues, in which he showed technical 
ability, good taste, and refinement, but little originality. 
His few ideal works, such as the Sleeping Children, at Lich- 
field, and the Resignation, at Worcester, are classic in treat- 
ment, with a touch of sentiment. Sir Richard Westmacott 
(1775-1856) Avas a pupil of Canova. He produced several 
statues in neo-classic style, but his principal works are 
monumental. The pediment sculptures of the British 
Museum, the monuments of Pitt, Fox, and Percival, in 
Westminster Abbey, and those of Sir Ralph Abercrombie 
and Lord Collingwood, in St. Paul's, are good examples of 



his correct and uninspired style. John Gibson (1790-1866) 
was the most noted English sculptor of the classic school. 
In 1817 he went to Rome, where he studied under Canova 
and Thorvaldsen and remained until 1844. His earliest 
original work is the Sleeping Shepherd ; then followed Mars 
and Cupid, Psyche borne by Zephyrs, Narcissus, Hylas, 
Hero and Leander, and other similar sculptures, all in the 
strictly correct classic style. His Queen Victoria is robed 
in classic garments. In 1862 he exhibited his "Tinted 
Venus," an attempt to revive the coloring of statuary prac- 
tised by the Greeks. His colors were rather timidly used, 
and the work was not well received ; it lost the beauty of 
white marble without acquiring the richness and brilliancy 
of mediaeval or modern polychrome statuary. 

Others of the Classic School. — Other sculptors of the 
strictly classic school were William Theed (1764-1817), 
William Pitts (1790-1840), Thomas Campbell (1790-1858), 
Richard John Wyatt (1795-1858), Patrick Macdowell (1799- 
1870), and Joseph Durham (1814-1877), whose works, like 
those of other" contemporaries, are little more than attempts 
to imitate, in slightly varying forms, the qualities of ancient 
art. Allan Cunningham and Henry Weekes, who worked 
with Chantrey on some of his monuments, were well-known 
portrait sculptors, as were also William Behnes (1790-1864), 
Thomas Kirk (1784-1845), and John E. Jones (1806-1864). 

Alfred Stevens. — Although the classical school survived 
untU some time after the middle of the nineteenth century, 
the movement toward greater life and reality in sculpture 
began considerably before that time. The first man who 
broke away from the classical traditions sufficiently to 
be regarded as the beginner of the transition to naturalism 
was Alfred George Stevens (1817-1875), a pupil of Thorvald- 
sen, but one who did not follow the precepts of his master. 
He received his chief inspiration from the works of Michael 
Angelo, and in his monument to the Duke of Wellington, 
in St. Paul's cathedral, produced a work of real power. His 
decorative sculptures exhibit a breadth and freedom in marked 
contrast to the feeble efforts of most of his contemporaries. 


Foley. Marshall. Woolner. — John Henry Foley (1818- 
1875) followed the classic traditions in his earlier works, but 
his portrait busts and statues are more modern and naturalis- 
tic. The figure of the Prince Consort and the group of Asia, 
on the Albert Memorial, are his work. His statue of Sir 
Joshua Reynolds, in the Tate galley, is A'igorous and lifelike, 
but the equestrian statue of Sir James Outram, in Calcutta, 
is perhaps his greatest achievement. One of the latest ex- 
amples of his art is the statue of General "Stonewall" 
Jackson, at Richmond, Virginia. W. Calder Marshall 
(1813-1894) continued faithfully in the neo-classic traditions, 
except that in his " Prodigal Son" he showed some originality 
and power. His popularity is a proof of the strength of the 
classic school late in the nineteenth century. Thomas 
Woolner (1S2.5-1893) was also a classicist in his earlier works, 
but de^•eloped a vein of romantic sentiment and, in his 
latest important work. The Housemaid, accepted, at least 
in his choice of subject, the principles of the naturalistic 
school. He was an original member of the Pre-Raphaelite 
Brotherhood, founded in 1848, and in some of his works he, 
like other members of the Brotherhood, tried to catch the 
spirit of the Early Renaissance. His portrait statues, busts, 
and medallions are refined and elevated in conception. 

Boehm. Armstead. — Sir Joseph Edgar Boehm (1834-1891), 
an Austrian by birth, was instrumental in aiding the movement 
toward naturalism. His portrait busts are usually excellent. 
Among his portrait statues the Carlyle in Chelsea is possibly 
the best, though the John Bunyan, at Bedford, and the 
statues of Dean Stanley and the Earl of Shaftesbury, in 
Westminster Abbey, nearly, or quite, equal it. In some of 
his ideal works he exhibits the modern spirit. His efforts 
to infuse new life into English sculpture were ably seconded 
by Alfred Gilbert, Edouard Lanteri, and others. Henry 
Hugh Armstead (1828-1905) was an active sculptor in 
various kinds of work. His chief activity was in archi- 
tectual decoration, of which the Colonial Office in White- 
hall offers a good example ; he was also the author of the 
best part of the decoration of the Albert Memorial, of the 


fountain in King's College, Cambridge, of the "Entomb- 
ment" in Hythe church, and the marble doorway of the 
Holborn restaurant. He produced also a considerable 
number of effigies and busts, besides several ideal works, 
such as "Playmates" (1897; a girl with a kitten), "Re- 
morse" (1901), and "Ariel" (1882). His work has nobility, 
solidity, and largeness of style. 

Lawson. Simonds. — George Anderson Lawson (1832- 
1904) received his artistic education in Scotland and, in a 
measure, in Rome. His "Dominie Sampson" (1888) is 
frankly humorous ; in his later work he aimed at Greek 
severity, tempered by modern feeling. His work is virile 
and possesses distinction, but possibly lacks animation. 
George Simonds (b. 1844) was a pupil of Schilling in Dresden, 
then worked in Brussels and Rome. In addition to monu- 
mental and decorative sculpture, he has produced many 
ideal works, such as " Dionysus astride his Leopard," 
"The Goddess Gerd," "The Falconer" (in Central Park, 
New York). His work is intellectual, imaginative, refined, 
and well executed. 

Brock. Bates. Thornycroft. — Sir Thomas Brock (b. 1847) 
has produced a great quantity of sculpture. He was a 
pupil of Foley, but has advanced far beyond his master. His 
works include many portrait busts and statues, as well as 
numerous ideal figures, such as "Eve," "Salamacis," and 
"Hercules and Antaeus" in his early style, and "The Mo- 
ment of Peril" (a combat of an American Indian and his 
horse against a great serpent) and "The Genius of Poetry" 
in his later manner. He is the author of the Queen Victoria 
Memorial in London. In his earlier works he is still classic, 
but later adopted the romantic and, in some measure, 
naturalistic style. His work is scholarly, refined, and dig- 
nified. Harry Bates (1850-1899) united modern treatment 
and classic form. His style is serene and free from all 
restlessness (Fig. 187). His portrait busts are excellent 
both in technique and in portrayal of character. His 
reliefs are especially good. W. Hamo Thornycroft (b. 1850) 
received his early training from his father, who was an in- 



different sculptor, and his natural tendency was toward the 
imitation of Flaxman and the antique. This is seen in some 
of his early work, but his "Lot's Wife" (1878) and his 
"Artemis" (1880) have a romantic quality, and his "Teucer" 
(1881) is already more realistic. The "Medea" (1888) 
retains traces of classicism, mingled with romanticism and 
realism. The "Sower" and the "Mower" are frankly 
realistic. He is the author of a number of public monuments 

and of ideal and real portraits. 
In general, his work in the 
round is better than his reliefs; 
but in all his work he exhibits 
strength, refined taste, and a 
sense of beauty. 

Begiimings of the New School. 
Its Character. — The change 
which has been noted in the 
works of Brock and Thornycroft 
is typical of the change in the 
character of British sculpture. 
The dull classicism of the pre- 
vious generation has passed away, 
and a more vigorous spirit has 
taken its place. This change is 
due originally to the influence 
of Carpeaux, but that influence 
was brought to England mainly by Jules Dalou, a refugee 
from Paris at the time of the commune, who was for some 
years master of the rnodelling classes at South Kensington. 
He was succeeded by Edouard Lanteri, and W. S. Frith, Alfred 
Gilbert, and others helped to encourage the new tendency. 
The modern English sculpture aims at restrained and taste- 
ful picturesqueness. It is realistic, but its realism is tem- 
pered by poetry and grace. Not beauty of form alone, 
but sentiment and, above all, action are the objects of 
the sculptor's interest. Drapery is likely to hide the action, 
and therefore a preference for nude figures is evident. Occa- 
sionally this leads to the production of statues which are 

FiGUBE 187. — Pandora, by 
Bates. Tate Gallery, London. 


little more than studies of the nude. The number of 
modern sculptors is considerable, and it will be impossible 
to mention all whose work is meritorious. 

Thomas. Ford. Swan. Lucchesi. — J. Havard Thomas 
(b. 1854) produced several portrait busts and monuments 
between 1872 and 1889. His "Slave Girl" (1886) is a 
realistic figure, exquisitely carved, for this sculptor carves 
his marbles (when they are not too large) himself, whereas 
most modern sculptors content themselves with modelling. 
In 1889 he went to Italy, where he devoted himself for several 
years to carving realistic heads of South Italian- types. His 
statue "Lycidas" is classic in type, but not neo-classic. It 
is full of life and superbly modelled. In general, this artist's 
work is restful, delicate, and full of poetic feeling. Edward 
Onslow Ford (1852-1901) was the artist of many portraits, 
both busts and statues. Among the latter are Irving as 
Hamlet, and Gordon mounted on a camel. The most 
noted of his other memorial monuments is that of Shelley, 
at University College, Oxford, which is finely executed, but 
somewhat artificial in design. Onslow Ford's portraits 
are almost unsurpassed. His ideal statues are chiefly 
female nudes. In all his works he displayed a fine feeling 
for beauty and great refinement, though occasionally he 
employed too much elaborate detail. John Macallan Swan 
(1847-1910) was especially a sculptor of animals, chiefly 
of the felidae. His naturalistic presentation of the move- 
ment of the great cats is remarkably lifelike and powerful. 
His modelling is fine and accurate. In the relatively few 
human figures he produced, he showed originality and 
skill. Andrea Carlo Lucchesi (b. 1860) is a sculptor of 
pleasing ideal figures, chiefly female nudes. His work is 
realistic and at the same time romantic. 

Watts. Leighton. — Two painters, George Frederick Watts 
(1817-1904) and Sir Frederick (later Lord) Leighton (1830- 
1896), distinguished themselves and exerted great influence 
by a few works of sculpture. Watts produced several large 
statues and groups, among them "Bishop Lonsdale" in 
Lichfield, "Hugh Lupus" for the Duke of Westminster, and 



"Physical Energy," which was executed in duplicate and 
stands in South Africa and in London. In all these there is 
great vigor, breadth, and simplicity. But his most admired 
work is a bust of Clytie, which shows how a classic subject 
can be so treated as to be full of life and reality. Lord 

Leighton's " Athlete strang- 
ling a Python" (1877), his 
later statue " The Sluggard " 
(Fig. 188), and the statuette 
"Needless Alarms" prove 
him a master of the tech- 
nique of modelling and the 
possessor of remarkable 
knowledge of the human 
form and its movements. 

Gilbert. Frampton. Reyn- 
olds-Stephens. Drury. 
Frith. Pegram. Jones. — 
Alfred Gilbert (b. 1854) is 
the author of many busts, 
monuments, and ideal fig- 
ures, such as Perseus, Icarus, 
"The Kiss of Victory," 
"Comedy and Tragedy." 
His statue of Queen Vic- 
toria, at Winchester, is not 
merely an admirable por- 
trait, but an embodiment 
of the majesty of royalty. 
He has done also a great 
deal of decorative work in 
metal, and the revival of 
the use of the cire perdue 
method of bronze casting in England is due to him. His work 
is full of life, is playful and broad. His manner is sometimes 
a little florid, but his taste is pure and refined. He is one of 
those who combine metal and colored stones with white 
marble. Sir George James Frampton (b. 1860) is a sculptor 

Figure ISS. — The Sluggard, by 
Leighton. Tate Gallery, London. 


of varied powers. His first important work is a Socrates 
(1884), which was followed by several ideal figures. In 1893 
he exhibited the " Mysteriarch, " his first polychrome statue, 
since which time he has employed color freely in his sculptures. 
His decorative work is rich, original, and varied. The 
"Peter Pan," in Kensington 
Gardens (Fig. 189), shows the 
delicacy, refinement, and charm 
which characterize his work. 
Portraiture seems to interest 
him less than ideal work, but 
he has produced many excel- 
lent portraits. W. S. Frith 
deserves mention chiefly as 
an excellent and influential 
teacher, though his work in all 
fields of sculpture is vigorous 
and intelligent. Henry A. 
Pegram (b. 1862) was a little 
conventional in his earliest 
works, but with "The Bather" 
(1895) and "Labor" (1896) he 
showed himself as a realist. His 
monument to Mrs. Michaelis 
combines beauty with pathos. 
He exhibits much decorative 
feeling, sense of the values of 
light and shade, with a big style 
and much movement and life. 
Captain Adrian Jones (b. 1845) 
made a specialty of groups which 
contain horses. William Reyn- 
olds-Stephens (b. 1862 at Detroit) has worked much in 
metals, as well as in marble. His work is refined and deli- 
cate. Some of his purely decorative work is remarkably 
good. The work of Alfred Drury (b. 1857) consists of pub- 
lic monuments, portrait busts, ideal figures, and decorative 
sculpture. He is a good observer and his technique is 

Figure 189. — Peter Pan; 
bronze by Frampton. Kensing- 
ton Gardens, London. 


clever. His work is quiet, contemplative, and well de- 

Pomeroy. Toft. Lanteri. Fehr. Colton. — Frederick 
William Pomeroy, like Drury a pupil of the Lambeth schools 
under Dalou, is an artist of great taste, ability, and productiv- 
ity. His work is realistic, full of truth and vigor ; his tech- 
nique and modelling are excellent, and his decorative designs 
good and effective. He has produced many ideal works, 
such as "Dionysus," "The Xymph of Loch Awe," "Perseus" 
(with reminiscences of Benvenuto Cellini), and "The 
Spearman," also numerous public monuments and portrait 
statues. Albert Toft, after modelling several reliefs, ex- 
hibited his first statue, "Lilith," in 1889. This was followed 
by several ideal statues, for the most part nude female 
figures. The "Spirit of Contemplation," a nude female 
seated in an arm-chair, is a dignified, refined, and thoughtful 
composition. Toft's memorials of the Boer War at Cardiff 
and Birmingham, his portrait busts, and his ideal composi- 
tions, especially those of recent date, are full of refined 
thoughtfulness and poetry. Edouard Lanteri, a naturalized 
Belgian, is a sculptor of varied gifts, but his chief importance 
is due to his teaching at the Royal College of Art. Henry 
C. Fehr is a productive sculptor, but his work, with all its 
fine workmanship, cleverness, life, vivacity, and excellence 
of design, lacks depth and seriousness. W. R. Colton 
(b. 1867), the author of public monuments in England and 
in India and of numerous ideal works, showed himself 
strongly influenced by Rodin in his attractive and graceful 
high relief "The Crown of Love," but he possesses too much 
individuality to become a blind follower of any school. 
His work is varied and full of life. 

Other English Sculptors. — Other modern English sculptors 
are William Birnie Rhind, W. Goscombe John (b. 1860), 
Bertram Mackennal (b. 1863), who is much influenced by 
French art, especiallv that of Rodin, G. Herbert Hampton 
(b. 1862), F. E. Schenck (d. 1908), George Edward Wade, 
Gilbert Bayes (b. 1871), David McGill, Charles John Allen, 
Frank Mowbray Taubman (b. 1868), James Pittendrigh 


MacGilllv'ray (b. 1856), Paul R. Montford (b. 1868), Francis 
Derwent Wood (b. 1872), and Alfred Turner. Indeed there 
are still others, such as Frederick Thomas, Frank Fisher, 
Mortimer Brown, and J. C. McClure, who are clearly sculp- 
tors of ability ; but a complete list would be uninstructive, 
and enough has been said to indicate the numerical strength 
and the genuine excellence of the modern English sculptors, 
who, although influenced by foreign, especially French and 
Belgian, art, really form a national English school. 



Early Attempts. — Sculpture in the United States is, 
naturally enough, only of recent growth. The earliest 
attempts possess little interest, but may be mentioned for 
the sake of completeness. ^Nlrs. Patience Wright (1725- 
1785) of Bordentown, New Jersey, made wax busts and 
statues which were greatly admired both in America and in 
England. John Dixey, an Irishman, after coming from 
Italy in 1789, made a few statues, but busied himself chiefly 
with decorative carving for private houses. The great French 
sculptor Houdon visited the United States in 1785 and made 
the statue of Washington which is in the State Capitol at 
Richmond, Virginia, but his stay was brief and his work 
exerted no permanent influence. The ardent and eccentric 
Italian, Giuseppe Cerrachi (b. Rome, 1740), came to America 
in 1791 with a plan for an elaborate monument to Liberty, 
but his project met with little support, and he returned to 
Europe, after making a number of good busts of prominent 
men, several of which still exist, though his bust of Wash- 
ington has disappeared. Wilham Rush (1757-1833), of 
Philadelphia, had little or no training, but apparently some 
ability, if we may judge by his statue of the Njinph of the 
Schuylkill, the wooden original of which has been replaced by 
a bronze copy which stands in Fan-mount Park, Philadelphia. 
Rush's most important contribution to American art was his 
activity in founding the Philadelphia Academy of Fine Arts, 
in which his bust of Washington is preserved. John Frazee 
(1790-1852), of Rahway, New Jersey, was also deficient in 
training. He made, in 1824 or 1825, the first marble portrait 



by an American sculptor, a bust of John Wells for Grace 
Church, New York. He also made busts of Daniel Webster, 
John Jay, and others. Hezekiah Augur (1791-1858), of 
New Haven, seems to have had no little native ability, but 
he was almost entirely without training, and his work exerted 
no influence. 

The Classic School. Greenough. Powers. Crawford. — 
American sculpture as an art practised by trained sculptors 
begins with the work of Horatio Greenough (1805-1852). 
He it was who first led Americans to study sculpture in Italy, 
and the classical school of Canova and Thorvaldsen domi- 
nated sculpture in the United States until the last quarter of 
the nineteenth century. Greenough is most widely known 
by his statue of Washington in the garb and attitude of 
Olympian Zeus, a statue which might, if placed within the 
capitol, where its author intended it to be, produce a much 
better effect than it produces in its present position in the 
open ah. His " Chanting Cherubs " is an adaptation of figures 
from a painting by Raphael. His best works are his portrait 
busts. Hiram Powers (1805-1873), like Greenough a 
thorough classicist, lived a great part of his life in Italy. 
His "Greek Slave" was exceedingly popular. There is a 
gentle, sentiment in the face, and the rest of the statue is so 
refined as to remove all suggestion of human nakedness from 
its marble nudity. His portrait busts and statues are good, 
but he cannot be said to have shown great originality. 
Thomas Crawford (1813-1857) was more original than 
Powers, but was a pupil of Thorvaldsen and a classicist. His 
colossal "Freedom," which was cast by Clark Mills and sur- 
mounts the dome of the capitol at Washington, is a dignified 
and impressive figure. His bronze doors of the capitol, in- 
spired by Ghiberti's doors of the baptistery, are well designed, 
and his pediment group of the Indian mourning the Decay 
of his Race, also part of the adornment of the capitol, though 
not a great work, is independent and, on the whole, well 
conceived. The Washington Monument at Richmond is 
not especially fine, but, as one of the earliest equestrian 
statues in the country, it deserves mention. 


Hughes. Brown. Palmer.^ Ball Hughes (1806-1868) 
was an Englishman, who came to America in 1829. His 
statue of Alexander Hamilton, destroyed by fire in 1835, is 
said to be the first marble statue actually carved in this 
country, and his bronze statue of Dr. Bowditch, in Mount 
Auburn cemetery (now recast), is said to be the first bronze 
statue cast here. Henry Kirke Brown (1814-1886) went 
early to Italy, but refused to become a classicist, believing 
that American art should be concerned with American sub- 
jects, liis equestrian monument of Washington, in Union 
Square, New York, is his chief work, though the equestrian 
statue of General Winfield Scott, in Washington, is also 
excellent. His other works are rather commonplace. Clark 
Mills (1S15-188.3) modelled the first equestrian statue erected 
in this country, that of General Jackson in Washington, 
erected in 1853. He also made an equestrian statue of Wash- 
ington and cast Crawford's "Freedom." Erastus Dow 
Palmer (b. 1817), at first a carpenter, obtained what little 
training he had in this country. Not until 1873 did he visit 
Europe, and then only for a short time. His "Indian Girl" 
and "White Captive," strictly American subjects, were very 
popular. In these, as in his other works, such as Resigna- 
tion, Spring, the Infant Flora, the "Spirit's Flight," Faith, 
Mercy, Tlie Angel of the Sepulchre, many of which were 
reliefs, he exhibits much poetic sentiment. His portrait 
busts are also creditable. 

Ball. Stori/. R. Rogers. Rinehart. Hosmer. — Thomas 
Ball (b. 1819) produced a few works of strictly classical style 
and lived in Florence most of his life after the age of thirty- 
five, but remained thoroughly American. His most im- 
portant works are public statues, such as the equestrian 
Washington in Boston, the Daniel Webster in New York, 
and the Emancipation group in Washington. He was an 
artist of high ideals, which he handed down to his pupils 
Milmore and French. William Wetmore Story (1819-1895) 
lived after 1851 in Florence. His works comprise a number 
of strictly correct and classic statues, such as the Cleopatra, 
Semiramis, Polyxena, and Medea in the Metropolitan Mu- 


seum in New York, and several portrait figures. His Cleo- 
patra and his Libyan Sibyl were greatly admired in England 
and are less cold and lifeless than most of his productions. 
Randolph Rogers (1825-1892) lived in Rome after 1851. 
His "Nydia, the Blind Girl of Pompeii," a graceful figure, 
but somewhat lifeless, was much admired in England and in 
his native country. The "Lost Pleiad" and the Ruth are 
of similar character. For the capitol at Washington he 
designed the bronze doors illustrating the life of Columbus. 
Among his larger works the "America" at Providence and 
the "Michigan" at Detroit are most noted.' William Henry 
Rinehart (1825-1874) went to Italy for a short stay in 1855 
and returned thither in 1858 to spend the rest of his life. In 
the Rinehart Museum of the Peabody Institute, Baltimore, 
are forty-two casts and three originals (marble) of his works. 
He was a thorough classicist. His Endymion sleeps in the 
same room of the Corcoran Gallery in Washington which 
contains Powers' Greek Slave, and a bronze replica adorns 
the sculptor's grave at Greenmount cemetery. His most 
famous work, the Clytie, is greatly superior to the Greek 
Slave, though hardly more original. His seated statue of 
Chief Justice Taney, at Annapolis and Baltimore, is a dig- 
nified and worthy monument. Miss Harriet Hosmer (1830- 
1908) was a pupil of the English sculptor Gibson, at Rome. 
She produced two amusing little figures, "Puck" and " Will- 
o-the-Wisp," but her other works, with the exception of a 
few portrait statues, are cold and formal classical produc- 
tions. Such are the Oenone, the Zenobia, the Beatrice 
Cenci, and the Sleeping Faun. Miss Hosmer was the last of 
the strictly classic school. 

Other Sculptors. — Other sculptors whose activity falls 
before the Centennial Exposition of 1876 were Henry Dexter 
(1806-1876), John King (b. 1806), .loel T. Hart (1810-1877), 
Shobal Vail Clevenger (1812-184.3), .Joseph Mozier (1812- 
1870), Edward A. Brackett (b. 1818), Edward Sheffield Bar- 
tholomew (1822-1858), Benjamin Paul Akers (1825-1861), 

' A collection of casta of his works is at Ann Arbor, Michigan, where he 
passed some years of his youth. 


John Adams Jackson (1825-1879), Thomas R. Gould (1825^ 
1881), Leonard Volk (b. 1828), John Rogers (b. 1829), 
William Rimmer (b. 1816), Thomas Gould (1818-1881), 
Richard Saltonstall Greenough (1819-1904), Chauncey B. 
Ives, Henry J. Haseltine, ]\Irs. Dubois, Emma Stebbins 
(1815-1882), Margaret Foley, Edmonia Lewis, Vinnie Ream 
(Mrs. Hoxie), and Blanche Xevin. These sculptors followed 
for the most part the traditions of the classic school, though 
they frequently chose biblical subjects and produced also 
many portrait busts and statues. John Rogers devoted him- 
self to genre subjects and produced many statuettes and 
small groups which were immensely popular on account of 
their realism and also because his subjects, connected with 
the Civil War and with the negroes, appealed to the imagina- 
tion of the people. 

Ward. — John Quincy Adams Ward (b. 1830) was trained 
by Henry Ivirke Brown. His work is honest, serious, well 
executed (not merely modelled for others to carve), and full 
of life. His early works, The Indian Hunter, The Freedman, 
The Pilgrim, The Private of the Seventh Regiment, were 
followed by many portrait monuments, among them the 
equestrian statues of Generals Thomas, Sheridan, and Han- 
cock, and the admirable standing statue of Henry Ward 
Beecher in Brooklyn. He is also the author of the well-con- 
ceived sculptures in the pediment of the Stock Exchange in 
New York. As president of the National Sculptm-e Society 
for many years, Mr. Ward has exerted great influence. 

P. and L. Powers. Waldo Story. Ezekiel. — The Italian 
influence which was so strong in the early part of the nine- 
teenth century yielded to the influence of Paris. The change 
began even before the Franco-Prussian war, but did not 
become pronounced until later. A few American sculptors 
still clung to the Italian school. Such are Preston and Long- 
worth Powers, sons of Hiram Powers, and T. Waldo Story 
(d. 1915), son of W. W. Story. Moses Jacob Ezekiel, born 
in 1844 at Richmond, Virginia, received his artistic training 
in Germany. His style was thoroughly German until he took 
up his residence in Italy, after which it became Italian. He 


produced many busts and some public monuments, but after 
1886 his work was cliiefly ideal and religious. 

Thompson. Mead. Bissell. Simmons. Milmore. — 
Several sculptors should be mentioned here, whose work 
hardly belongs to the new school, though much of it is modern 
in date. For the most part they devoted themselves chiefly 
to the production of the public monuments erected after the 
Civil War. Launt Thompson (1833-1894), born in Ireland, 
came to America and became a pupil of Erastus D. Palmer. 
His portrait statues and public monuments are dignified and 
well conceived. Larkin Goldsmith Mead (b. 1835) is the 
author of the Lincoln Memorial at Springfield, Illinois, of 
many other public monuments, and of numerous ideal works. 
Most of his time after 1862 was spent in Italy, and his works 
show strongly the Italian influence. George Edwin Bissell 
(b. 1839) produced designs and models for public monuments 
and a complete marble statue without professional training. 
In 1875-1876 and much of the time in 1883-1896 he was in 
Europe. His work, which includes many portrait busts, 
statues, and public monuments, is serious, careful, and full of 
character. Franklin Simmons (b. 1839) has executed about 
one hundred portrait busts, numerous public monuments, 
and a number of ideal statues, including Penelope, Medusa, 
Galatea, the Seraph Abdiel, and the Mother of Moses. 
Martin Milmore (1844-1883) came from Ireland in 1851. 
His most important work is the Soldiers' and Sailors' Monu- 
ment in Boston, certainly one of the best works of its class 
in the whole country. His other works are chiefly war 
monuments and portrait busts. 

French Influence. Roberts. Connelly. Hartley. Warner. 
Mrs. Whitney. Miss Ney. — Howard Roberts (1845-1900) 
exhibited a figure called "La Premiere Pose" at the Centen- 
nial Exposition in 1876, which aroused great interest, as it 
was the first notable example of the modern French style in 
American sculpture. A few ideal busts and statues or 
statuettes, Hester Prynne, Hypatia, Lot's Wife, Eleanor, 
make up nearly the sum of Roberts' works, but he has the 
honor of having introduced the French style. Pierce Francis 


Connelly, like Roberts, made his appearance at the Centen- 
nial Exposition and soon disappeared. Among his works, 
exhibited there are a vigorous romantic group of "Honor and 
Death" and a classic "Thetis," showing the wide range of 
the sculptor's taste and ability. Jonathan Scott Hartley 
(b. 1845) studied under Erastus Dow Palmer, at the Royal 
Academy in London, in Berlin, Italy, and Paris. His works 
are almost all public monuments or busts, in which he shows 
himself an admirable portraitist. Olin Levi Warner (1844- 
1896) worked for three years under .Jouft'roy and Carpeaux 
in Paris. He produced fine, characteristic portrait busts and 
statues, a few admirable nude figures, a beautiful fountain at 
Portland, Oregon, and a number of fine reliefs, among them 
those of one of the bronze doors of the Congressional Library. 
Among his public monuments the "Governor Buckingham," 
at Hartford, the " William Lloyd Garrison," in Boston, and 
the "General Devens," also in Boston, are especially good. 
Two women — ?ilrs. Anne ^^Tlitney and Miss Elisabet Xey 
— should also be mentioned here. ]Mrs. Whitney (b. 1821) 
did not begin the study of modelling until she was nearly 
thirty-five years of age, but produced a considerable number 
of interesting works. Among them are statues of Leif Eric- 
son (Boston and ^Milwaukee), Samuel Adams, Ethiopia, and 
Roma. Of her other works some are portraits, some ideal 
subjects. ]Miss Xey was born in Westphalia and was for 
some years a popular scvilptress at INIunich. She left Ger- 
many for political reasons and settled in Texas soon after 
the Ci^•il War. She has modelled a number of statues and 
many portrait busts. Her work is always thoughtful and 
sincere, but her isolation has probably prevented her progress 
in technique. 

Augustus iSf. Gaudens. — Augustus St. Gaudens (1848- 
1907) was born in Ireland (his father was French), but came 
to America as an infant. He was trained in Paris, but studied 
also in Rome. Even before he went to Paris he had worked 
for six years as a cameo-cutter, to which fact is probably due 
in part his subsequent mastery in the treatment of low relief. 
To him more than to anv other one man is due the remarkable 


development of American sculpture in recent years. In his 
work the thorough technique, freedom and delicacy of 
modelling, appreciation of movement, and ability to produce 

Figure 190. — Abraham Lincoln, by St. Gaudens. Chicago. 

the impression of realism without undue insistence upon 
details, qualities which belong to the pupils of the Ecole des 
Beaux-Arts, are joined with insight into character, depth of 
sentiment, and poetic charm. His Farragut monument in 


New York was a revelation to American sculptors and the 
American public. It was followed by the Deacon Chapin in 
Springfield and the Lincoln in Chicago (Fig. 190). In all of 
these his power to feel and express character is exemplified. 
In the equestrian Sherman in New York the same quality is 
seen, and the s^•mbolic figure of Victory adds a poetic charm 
which lifts the monument out of the realm of portraiture into 
that of ideal composition. In the magnificent Shaw Me- 
morial in Boston a similar figure floats above the mounted 
officer and his marching colored troops. This memorial — a 
bronze relief so high as to be partly modelled in the round — 
combines realism with poetry, historical fact with patriotic 
and martial inspiration. In the relief portraits of President 
McCosh, at Princeton, and of Dr. Bellows, in New York, 
grace and power are present in the proportion befitting the 
characters of the two men. The caryatides for the house of 
Cornelius ^'anderbilt and the angels for the tomb of Gov- 
ernor IMorgan (unfortunately the models were destroyed) have 
all the grace of the angel figures of the Early Renaissance. 
In the mysterious bronze figure of the Adams JNIemorial in 
Rock Creek Cemetery, Washington (called "The Peace of 
God" or "Grief" or "Death"), there is a compelling power 
seldom seen in any work of art. St. Gaudens was deservedly 
regarded during his life as the chief of American sculptors. 

French. — Daniel Chester French (b. 1850) had enjoyed vir- 
tually no training beyond a month in the studio of J. Q. A. Ward 
and some slight study of anatomy when he produced, in 1875, 
the statue of the ^Minute j\Ian, at Concord, IMassachusetts. 
A cast of the Apollo of the Belvedere was his only model, but 
his dependence upon this classic original is not merely con- 
cealed, it is overcome by the earnest feeling and the serious 
purpose of the young sculptor. For a year he lived in 
Florence in the house of Preston Powers and worked in the 
studio of Thomas Ball, since which time his training has been 
gained merely in the practice of his art. He has produced 
figures and pedimental groups for the Custom House in St. 
Louis, the Court House in Philadelphia, and the Post Office 
in Boston, a considerable munber of public monuments and 


Figure 191. — The Mourning Victory, by French. Melvin Memorial, Con- 
cord, Mass.' (Photo. A. W. Elson and Co., Boston.) 

' From the sculptor's original plaster. A marble replica of this figure is in 
the Metropolitan Museum, New York. 


portraits, the remarkable relief of Death and the Sculptor 
in memory of Martin INIilmore, and many other works. 
Among them the group of Gallaudet teaching a deaf mute, 
the monument to John Boyle O'Reilly, the memorial relief 
to Mrs. Alice Freeman Palmer, and the Melvin Memorial 
at Concord, Massachusetts (1908), may be singled out for 
especial commendation (Fig. 191). He is a> sculptor of 
power and refinement. His work shows self-restraint, 
appreciation of beauty of form, and breadth of treat- 

MacMonnies. Barnard. Bartlett. — Frederick William 
MacMonnies (b. 1863) was a pupil of St. Gaudens, of Fal- 
guiere (Ecole des Beaux- Arts), and Mercie. Among his 
works are Nathan Hale, in Xew York, bronze angels in St. 
Paul's Church, New York, James S. T. Stranahan, in Brook- 
lyn, Sir Harry Vane, in the Boston Public Library, groups 
for the Soldiers' and Sailors' Monument at Indianapolis, the 
figure of Victory on the Battle Monument, West Point, the 
"Bacchante" in the Luxembourg and the Metropolitan 
Museum. His style is more thoroughly French than that 
of St. Gaudens and exhibits less restraint than that of Daniel 
C. French. Sometimes his work lacks simplicity, but it is 
always well executed and possesses the charm of individuality. 
George Grey Barnard (b. 1863) studied in the Chicago Art 
Listitute and the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. His works include 
"Boy," "The Two Natures," " Brotherly Love, " "The God 
Pan," "The Hewer," and various portrait busts. He is an 
artist of marked originality and power, but may perhaps be 
accused of lack of restraint and, if his sincerity were not un- 
questioned, of striving for effect. Paul Wayland Bartlett 
(b. 1865) received his artistic education entirely in Paris. 
His skill as a sculptor of animals is seen in his "Bohemian 
Bear Tamer," and his remarkable dexterity in modelling and 
his knowledge of the human body in his "Ghost Dancer." 
He is the author of several equestrian monuments and of the 
admirable Columbus and Michael Angelo in the Congres- 
sional Library at Washington, besides a considerable number 
of other statues. Among his recent works are six excellent 


symbolic figures for the facade of the Pubhc Library in 
New York. 

Adams. Niehaus. Boyle. — Herbert Adams (b. 1858), 
a pupil of Mercie, is especially noted for his charming busts 
of women, among which a bust of Miss Pond, one of his 
earliest works, may be singled out for peculiar praise on 
account of ■^e delicacy of workmanship and of sentiment 
which it discloses. Among his other works are statues of 
Richard Smith (Philadelphia), William Ellery Channing 
(Boston), and Joseph Henry (Washington), the bronze doors 
representing "Writing," in the Library of Congress, the 
bronze doors of the Vanderbilt Memorial, in St. Bartholo- 
mew's Church, New York, and a number of bronze memorial 
tablets. In all his works delicacy and charm, rather than 
power, are the prevailing qualities. Charles H. Niehaus 
(b. 1855 at Cincinnati) received his education as a sculptor 
in Munich. His statue of Garfield, in Cincinnati, is his 
first important work, and one of his best. After making this 
statue he went to Rome, where he made several nude figures 
of classic subjects in realistic manner. Of these "The Greek 
Athlete using a Strigil" is the most widely known. Most of 
his works are moniunental statues, among them Hahnemann, 
Garfield, Gibbon, Moses (all in Washington), Hooker and 
Davenport (Hartford), Lincoln, Farragut, and McKinley 
(Muskegon, Michigan), and the equestrian General Forrest 
(Memphis, Tennessee). He is also the author of a number 
of excellent reliefs. His work is always dignified and well 
modelled. John J. B9yle (b, 1851) was educated in Phila- 
delphia and at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. His work is 
powerful and original. His favorite field is the representa- 
tion of the American Indian. "The Stone Age" (1888), in 
Fairmount Park, Philadelphia, a group of an Indian woman 
and her two children, is vigorous and impressive, as is also 
his group, "The Alarm," in Chicago. The same qualities 
were seen in the two groups "The Savage Age," exhibited 
at the Pan-American Exposition at Buffalo. He is also the 
author of the Bacon in the Library of Congress, a Franklin 
in Philadelphia, and a number of other works. 


Couper. Ehvell. Ruckstuhl. Partridge. — William Cou- 
per (b. 1853), son-in-law of Thomas Ball, lived for a long 
time in Italy and acquired the modern Italian style, with its 
inclination toward delicate workmanship and fine detail. In 
Italy he made several ideal figures and a number of portraits. 
Since his return to America, in 1897, he has made numerous 
portrait busts and statues, several charming reliefs, and a 
number of angel figures, in which be excels. Frank Edwin 
Elwell (b. 1858) studied in Boston and Paris. He is a thought- 
ful and imaginative sculptor, who has produced many im- 
pressive and interesting ideal figures, portrait statues (among 
them the fine equestrian statue of General Hancock, at 
Gettysburg), and lesser works. Frederick WeUington Ruck- 
stuhl (b. 1853) studied in Paris. He has produced many 
ideal figures, among which the "Evening" in the Metro- 
politan Museum is perhaps still the best. In this his treat- 
ment is less realistic than that which is seen in most nude 
figures of the French school. In his other works also he 
shows himself to be an artist of poetic temperament and 
marked individuality. William Ordway Partridge (b. 1861) 
has written and lectured on art, in addition to his work as 
a productive sculptor. His portrait busts and statues are 
s^•mpathetic, and show the broad culture and imagination of 
the artist. 

Konti. Bitter. Martiny. Rhind. — Isidore Konti (b. 
1862), an Austrian by birth, is an excellent sculptor whose 
special field is decorative work, though his public mommients 
and ideal figures are neither few nor lacking in merit. Karl 
Bitter (1867-1915), another Austrian, distinguished himself 
by brilliant decorative sculpture and also by excellent work 
of other kinds. His influence was strong and growing when 
death put an end to his career. Philip Martiny (b. 1858) 
has been more decidedly a creator of decorative sculpture 
than either Konti or Bitter, though his monumental work is 
also extensive. J. Massey Rhind (b. 1858) has found the 
chief field of his activity in architectural sculpture, and has 
exerted a very important infiuence upon the development of 
architectural decoration. He has also produced several por- 



trait statues for public monuments. Martiny, Rhind, Konti, 
and Bitter, all of foreign birth, have given a much needed 
impulse to decorative sculpture in the United States. 

Sculptors of Neiv York. — New York has been for several 
decades the chief centre of art in this country, and nearly 
all the sculptors of the present time whose names have thus 
far been mentioned are settled in that city. Other New 
York sculptors are: Charles Calverley (b. 1833), known 
chiefly by his medallions and busts, William R. O'Donovan 
(b. 1844), a maker 
of portraits and re- 
liefs, John Donoghue 
(1853-1903), Louis 
St. Gaudens (b. 
1854), a talented 
sculptor, brother of 
Augustus St. Gaud- 
ens, James E. Kelly 
(b. 1855), whose 
works are chiefly 
portrait monuments, 
Frederick MoynLhan, 
Alexander Doyle (b. 
1858), known chiefly 
by his portrait 
statues, Thomas 
Shields Clarke (b. 
1860), who has been 
engaged in several large monumental works, George Thomas 
Brewster (b. 1862), Frederick E. Triebel (b. 1865), Henry 
Linder, Rudolph Schwarz, Frederick Robert Kaldenberg (b. 
1855), Hermon Atkins MacNeil (b. 1866), who makes rather 
a specialtj^ of the American Indian, Roland Hinton Perry (b. 
1870), Henry Augustus Lukeman (b. 1870), Edward Berge, 
Adolph Alexander Weinman (b. 1870), Andrew O'Connor 
(now living in Paris), and many more.^ 

' A complete list of American sculptors of the present day cannot be 
attempted here. Some further names may, however, be given : Charles A, 


Figure 192. — The End of the Trail, by Fraser. 
Exhibited at the Panama Exposition. 


Sculptors of Animals. — Several sculptors have made a 
specialty of animals. The chief of these men are Edward 
Kemeys (b. 1843), who has represented wild beasts ; Edward 
C. Potter, who has devoted himself to horses (on several 
occasions for riders by Daniel C. French) ; Henry Kirke 
Bush-Browne (b. 1857), who has also produced good pubhc 
monuments and other human figures ; Eli Harvey (b. 1860), 
who prefers animals of the cat family; Phimister Proctor 
(b. 1862), a sculptor of animals in combination with human 
figures ; Solon H. Borglum (b. 1868) ; Henry U. Shrady 
(b. 1871), whose work is by no means confined to animals, 
though he has distinguished himself as an animal sculptor ; 
and Frederick G. Roth (b. 1872), who has also done good 
work in other fields. 

Boston. S. Kitson. H. H. Kifson. Pratt. Dallin. Brooks. 
Bachnann. — In Boston two Englishmen, Samuel Kitson 
(b. 1848) and Henry Hudson Kitson (b. 1865), have 
done good work as sculptors and teachers; the elder is 
especially productive in architectural decoration. Bela L. 
Pratt (b. 1867), who studied his art at Yale University, Xew 
York, and Paris, is a sculptor of rare ability and versatility. 
His works include busts, medals, ideal figures, and reliefs, 
in all of which he reveals delicate imagination and exquisite 
modelling. Cyrus E. Dallin (b. 1861) has produced numer- 
ous good portraits and other works, but his reputation rests 
largely upon his equestrian statues of Indians, the "Signal 
of Peace" in Chicago, the "^Medicine Man" in Philadelphia, 
the "Protest" which was exhibited at the St. Louis exposi- 
tion, and the "Appeal to the Great Spirit" in Boston (Fig. 
193). All of these are powerful, dignified works, testifying 
to profound study and high imaginative power. Richard 
E. Brooks (b. 1865) and INIax Bachmann, an architectural 
sculptor, are also to be mentioned. 

Lopez (b. 1869), Jerome Conner, John H. Roudebush, John Flanagan (b. 
1865), Victor D. Brenner (b. 1871). Amor\' C. Simmons (b. 1869), Louis 
Potter, Carl E. Tefft, James E. Fraser (whose "End of the Trail," at the 
Panama Exposition, is a work of dramatic realism; Fig. 192), Gustave 
Gerlach, Antonin Skodik, all of New York, and these are by no means all 
the sculptors of that city who deserve mention. 


Philadelphia. Early Sculptors. Grafly. Calder. Murray. 
Cox. — In Philadelphia Joseph A. Bailly (b. 1825), a French- 
man, was occupied with portraits and commercial art, and 
did much to make sculpture popular. Albert E. Harnisch, 
Henry J. Haseltine, Henry Jackson Ellicott, and Alexander 
Milne Calder were productive about the middle of the nine- 
teenth century and for some time after. Charles Grafly 
(b. 1862) has been an active teacher and has produced 
much sculpture, chiefly small 
groups in bronze, also busts, 
and some fine large figures. 
His "Fountain of Man" at 
the Pan-American Exposi- 
tion and "Truth," which 
decorates the Art Building 
at St. Louis, are full of grace 
and power. Alexander Stir- 
ling Calder (b. 1870) is also 
a teacher, and much of his 
work has been industrial, 
but as Acting Chief of 
Sculpture at the Panama 
Exposition he has shown 
great originality and power. 
Samuel Murray and Charles 
Brinton Cox are also Phila- 

Valentine. Keyser. Barn- 
horn. Frankenstein. Rehisso. 

— Edward V. Valentine (b. 1838), of Richmond, Virginia, 
studied at Paris, in Italy, and under Kiss in Berlin. He has 
produced numerous portraits and monuments, among them 
the Lee Memorial at Washington and Lee University, and 
a few interesting genre figures of negroes. His ideal group 
of Andromache and Astyanax is a curious mixture of senti- 
ment and archaeology. Ephraim Keyser (b. 1852), of Bal- 
timore, studied at Munich and Rome. His most widely 
known work is the very impressive monument to Chester A. 

Figure 193. — Appeal to the Great 
Spirit, by Dallin. Boston. 


Arthur in the cemetery at Albany, New York. The Stein 
Memorial, in the Jewish cemetery at Baltimore, a work in 
relief, is even more admirable. At Cincinnati Clement J. 
Barnhorn (b. 1857) has produced many portraits and public 
mommaents. His nude "Magdalen" is finely modelled and 
shows originality and imagination. Earlier sculptors at 
Cincinnati are John Frankenstein and Louis T. Rebisso. 
The latter has long been a successful teacher of his art. He 
has produced many equestrian statues, which are satisfactory, 
though not great. 

Chicago. Taft and his School. Bock. Cnmelle. Mnlli- 
gan. Hibbard. — In Chicago the chief sculptor is Lorado 
Taft (b. 1860), a pupil of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. He is 
an active teacher at the Art Institute, a writer, and lecturer.^ 
His works of sculpture are in great part portraits and mili- 
tary monmnents. One of the latest is the Columbus Me- 
morial in Washington. He is a serious and conscientious 
sculptor and a master of technical processes. Other sculp- 
tors at Chicago are Richard Bock, Leonard Crunelle (b. 
1872), a sculptor of marked originality and talent, who makes 
a specialtv of children, Charles J. Mulligan, and Frederick 
C. Hibbard. 

St. Louis. Cleveland. The Pacific Coast. — In St. Louis 
Robert P. Bringhurst (b. 1855) has produced many decora- 
ti\'e works, some of which were seen at the expositions at 
Omaha and St. Louis; others adorn the chief buildings of 
St. Louis. His ideal works, a Faun, the "Awakening of 
Spring," and the "Kiss of Eternity," show that his ability is 
not limited to the production of fine decorative sculpture. 
In Cleveland Herman N. Matzen, though much occupied as 
professor in the Cleveland School of Art, has produced a 
considerable number of busts, portrait reliefs, and public 
monuments. His work is thoughtful, sympathetic, and well 
modelled. In California Douglas Tilden (b. 1860) is a very 
skilful sculptor who seems to prefer modern subjects. 
Among his works are "The Tired Walker," the "Base Ball 

1 Most of the information about American sculptors contained in this book 
is derived from his American Sculpture (1903 ; second edition, 1916). 


Player," "The Tired Boxer," the "Young Acrobat," the 
"Football Players," a large and extremely animated group 
called "The Bear Hunt," the "Native Sons' Fountain," and 
the "Mechanics' Fountain." His work shows great tech- 
nical ability and vivid imagination, not always controlled by 
perfect taste. Robert Ingersoll Aitken (b. 1878), a pupil of 
Tilden, is an able sculptor now resident in New York. He 
has produced several large monuments, numerous busts, and 
a fine relief, "The Gates of Silence," besides other works. 
Haig Patigian (b. 1876 in America), Melvin Earl Cummings 
(b. 1876), Edgar Walter (b. 1877), Ralph W. Stackpole (b. 
1885), and Marion F. Wells (d. 1903) are other sculptors of 
the Pacific Coast. 

Nearly all American sculptors of note are active as teachers, 
and many of them, especially in the parts of the country 
where sculptors are few, find their time occupied in great 
part by their duties as instructors in the local schools of art. 
That their works are nevertheless so many and so good, 
testifies to their energy and ability. 

Women Sculptors. — Among the women who have made 
sculpture their profession, the most important are perhaps 
Mrs. Bessie Potter Vonnoh (b. 1872) of New York, whose 
small groups of women and children are delightful ; Miss 
Anna Vaughn Hyatt (b. 1876) of Cambridge, Massachusetts, 
a most admirable sculptor of animals; Miss Julia Bracken 
(b. 1871) of Chicago; Mrs. Edith Woodman Burroughs (b. 
1871), Mrs. Hermon A. MacNeil, Miss Carol Brooks (b. 
1871), Miss Helen Mears (b. 1876), Miss Janet Scudder, 
Miss Evelyn B. Longman (b. 1874), Miss Elsie Ward, Mrs. 
Harry Payne Whitney, Miss Enid Yandell, Mrs. Clio 
Bracken, Mrs. Anna Coleman Ladd, all of New York ; Miss 
Katherine Cohen of Philadelphia ; Mrs. H. H. Kitson (Miss 
Theo Ruggles) of Boston. 

Young Sculptors. — There are also many promising young 
sculptors, some of whom have already attracted no little 
attention. Only a few can be mentioned here. Paul Man- 
ship, Albin Polasek, Harry D. Thrasher, Abastenia St. Leger 
Eberle, Albert Laessle, Fred Torrey, Miss Nellie Walker, 


Miss Clyde Giltner Chandler, will be enough to indicate that 
the younger sculptors promise to continue the activity of their 

American Sculpture. — It is true that no American sculp- 
tor has yet arisen who can claim to be the equal of the greatest 
masters of all time, but many sculptors in the United States 
to-day are working earnestly, seriously, and conscientiously ; 
they possess complete command of technique; they have 
imagination, ability, and increasing opportunity. Sculpture 
is becoming a national art and an art which Americans can 
regard with satisfaction and pride. At the Panama Exposi- 
tion, in 1915, the decorative and architectural sculpture, 
created by many artists under the general direction of the 
x^cting Chief of Sculpture, A. Stirling Calder, was of remark- 
able excellence, and in the United States section of the 
Department of Fine Arts nearly six hundred works were 
brought together. These exhibit the art of one hundred 
and thirty-six sculptors, nearly all of whom are living and 
most of whom are still in the prime of life or younger. The 
variety, as well as the excellence, of their works shows the 
vigor and promise of American sculpture. 




Persia. — Alexander the Great extended Greek civilization 
over the entire Persian empire and into India. Persia was 
subsequently ruled for nearly a century by the Greek Se- 
leueidae, who were followed by the Parthian Arsacidae. In 
226 A.D. the Persians under Ardeschir (Artaxerxes) I re- 
volted, and the new Persian (Sassanide) empire lasted until 
the conquest by the Mohammedan Arabs in 1641. In all 
this time the sculpture of Persia, which is not very plentiful, 
is clearly an offshoot of Hellenistic art. The monuments 
are for the most part large reliefs cut in the living rock or 
small reliefs of metal. In both classes of work there is a 
good deal of liveliness, but not much delicacy, either in 
design or in execution. 

Indian Sculpture — its Periods. — The sculpture of India 
is also in great measure descended from Hellenistic art, 
though religion, Indian taste and modes of thought, and 
presumably an earlier sculpture in perishable materials, 
which has entirely disappeared, changed it so much as to 
make it almost entirely oriental. About 250 B.C. King 
Asoka, of Magadha, made Buddhism his state religion in.lieu 
of the old Brahmanism. Buddhism spread rapidly and estab- 
lished itself firmly in Ceylon, Farther India, Thibet, China, 
and Japan ; but in India proper it was largely reabsorbed in 
the seventh century by polytheistic Brahmanism. So in India 
Buddhist art extends approximately from 250 B.C. to 700 a.d. 
with occasional later manifestations as late as the eleventh 
century. The new Brahmanism was at its height when the 
Mohammedans entered India in the eleventh century, since 



which time there has been httle real development of sculp- 
ture. The periods into which the history of Indian art 
may be divided are : (1) the early period, about 250 B.C. to 
350 A.D. ; (2) the Gupta period, about 350 to 650 a.d. ; (3) 
the Mediaeval period, about 650 a.d. to the beginning of 
(4) the Modern period, which may be said to begin about the 
sixteenth century, though there is no clear division between 
it and its predecessor. 

Early Buddhist Art. Barhut. Buddha-Gaya. — The ear- 
liest Buddhist sculpture is not primitive. Its technique is 
admirable from the beginning. Although the art is clearly 
derived from the Hellenistic art of western Asia, the native 
Indian rotundity of form and suppleness of limb are evident 
at the outset. These qualities are not expressed through 
careful study of anatomy, but are superficial and often ex- 
aggerated. There is great liking for rich personal adorn- 
ment, and reliefs are often overcrowded at all periods. 
Strictly Indian motifs, especially the elephant, are common 
at a very early date. At Barhut (about 200 B.C.) the exten- 
sive and brilliantly executed reliefs represent legends of 
Buddha and processions of elephants and lions ; at Buddha- 
Gaya (perhaps a little later) domestic scenes, plant orna- 
ments, and the adoration of trees and Buddhistic symbols 
form the varied content of the reliefs. In both places the 
work is decidedly Indian in spirit, even though centaurs 
and some purely ornamental tuotifs of western origin occur. 

Sdnchi. Udayagiri. Bedsa. — The reliefs from the tope 
(stupa) of SanchI, which belong to the second century B.C., 
are admirable in technique. Much of the plant ornament 
is of western origin, but more is purely Indian. The ele- 
phants and other beasts are very true to life. The nar- 
rati\'e reliefs represent legends of Buddha, but here, as in 
the reliefs of Barhut and Buddha-Gaya, the figure of Buddha 
himself does not occur. Indra and other Indian divinities, 
spirits, and hybrid creatures are frequent. Some of these 
last are of western origin, but all the human forms have the 
soft, rounded, supple appearance characteristic of Indian 
art. The reliefs in one of the caves at Udayagiri (about 


150 B.C.) are of purely national style. The subjects are 
obscure myths. The observation of natural forms exhibited 
is superficial, but the narrative style of the reliefs is lively 
and attractive. The groups of beasts on the columns at 
Bedsa, admirably true to nature, and the earliest sculptures 
of the cave-temple at Karli date from the first century B.C. 
The latter represent human figures and elephants. They 
are purely Indian in their round, soft forms, which are com- 
bined to form an admirable decoration. 

Gandhara. Hellenistic Styles. — On the northwestern fron- 
tier of India, in the province of Gandhara, a school of sculp- 
ture arose which culminated between 50 and 200 a.d. The 
style seen here is evidently derived from late Hellenistic 
(Graeco-Roman) art. This is perhaps most plainly seen in 
the standing type of Buddha, a modification of the Graeco- 
Roman Apollo. The seated type of Buddlia probably ex- 
isted elsewhere at an earlier date, but this type also was 
developed and modified by the Gandhara school. The 
sculptures of Mathura and Sarnath are decidedly Hellenistic 
in character, though not identical in style with the Gand- 
hara works. Probably the western influence came by dif- 
ferent routes. The reliefs from Amaravati (about 200 a.d.) 
are a development of the style of Barhut and Sanchi, with 
Hellenistic traits. Their subjects are legends and decorative 
repetitions of the forms of beasts and boys. Buddha him- 
self appears here, with the nimbus, but standing among his 
disciples, not, as in later art, seated with his feet drawn under 
him. Probably the artists of these reliefs were more or less 
under the influence of the school of Gandhara. It was 
through the Hellenistic-Indian art of northern India during 
the Kushan period (ca. 1-300 a.d.) that the type of Buddha 
was spread far and wide in India, Thibet, China, Korea, 
and Japan. 

The Gupta Period. — During the Gupta period there are 
still traces of Hellenistic influence, but forms and postures 
are Indian. The subjects are chiefly Brahmanic. As a 
rule the technique is excellent, and the attitudes are natural, 
except that they are often exaggerated. Statues of Buddha 


are common in all parts of India after the fourth century, 
always in "frontal" posture, whether seated or standing. 
The colossal Buddhas in the \'estibule of the cave-temple of 
Kenheri and the interesting reliefs of the twenty-sixth 
grotto at Ajanta belong, apparently, to the fifth century. 
The sculptures of the temple at Deogarh are a little later. 

Mediaeval and Modern Indian Sculpture. — Mediaeval and 
modern art is Brahmanic, rather than Buddhistic, though 
directly descended from Buddhistic art. Sculpture is em- 
ployed chiefly in the decoration of temples and pagodas. 
The monolithic temples of INIahavellipur and Ellora are cut 
entirely from the li\-ing rock and adorned with sculpture 
within and without. In Indian temples the surfaces are 
much broken by pilasters, niches, and the like, and are 
covered with reliefs of deities, demons, elephants and other 
animals, and luxuriant plant ornament, often of great beauty. 
The rotundity and boneless suppleness of form which char- 
acterize Indian art from the beginning are even more marked 
in mediaeval and modern times, and the inorganic, fantastic 
forms of some of the divinities add to the general effect of 
unreality. The human spirit and the naturalistic treatment 
seen in the earlier art are now wanting. Buddha is no longer 
the sjTnpathetic human teacher, but has become a passion- 
less ascetic. In general, the subjects of sculpture are as- 
ceticism and Hindu m\-thology. The sculptors attempt to 
"reproduce literally in stone or bronze the descriptions of 
the deities as given in the books, with little regard to aesthetic 
considerations, and no form is too monstrous for plastic 
representation." ^ The Hindu devotee may find in such 
representations religious aid and comfort, but to others they 
can be only repulsive or, at best, objects of curiosity. In- 
deed, beauty is not attempted in these forms. But the 
technique of mediaeval Indian sculpture is often wonderfully 
fine, the knowledge of composition and of the effect of light 
and shade exhibited is sometimes surprising, and the purely 
ornamental designs are hardly to be surpassed. Sometimes 
passion is most admirably expressed by attitudes and 

' v. A. Smith, History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, p. 182. 


gestures, occasionally even by facial expression. The mod- 
elling of hands and other details is frequently exquisite. 

The great niunber of mediae^'al works of Indian sculpture 
makes it impossible to mention even any considerable part 
of them. On the whole, their qualities, though by no means 
identical at different times and places, are so similar that a 
more detailed discussion of individual monuments cannot 
be undertaken here. In modern times, Indian sculpture 
has continued, as in the Middle Ages, with no real develop- 
ment, but, on the whole, with deterioration of technical 
qualities. The purely ornamental carvings of Mohammedan 
art in India lie outside the scope of this book. 

Ceylon. — In Ceylon there was no relapse into Brahman- 
ism and no Moslem conquest. Buddhist art therefore con- 
tinued undisturbed. Standing and seated Buddhas are 
numerous, and decorative sculpture of animals and plants 
is found in temples, but there is little or no narrative relief. 
The chief remains of sculpture in Ceylon are at Anaradhapura, 
the early capital, where the monuments date from the first 
centuries of the Christian era, and at Pollanarua, which was 
most powerful about 1100 a.d. The great rock-cut relief 
of the sage Ivapila, at Anaradhapura is one of the most 
impressive works of sculpture in the Orient. Its date is 
apparently between 400 and 700 a.d. 

Java. Farther India. — At Boro-Budur, in Java, is a great 
tope (stupa) of uncertain date adorned with narrative re- 
liefs which, both in execution and in design, rank among the 
finest works of Indian sculpture. Their subjects are purely 
Buddhistic and their technique purely Indian. Statues of 
Buddha, in which little or no Gandhara influence is seen, 
are found in Java, and these are among the finest statues of 
Buddha in existence. Brahmanic sculpture is also found in 
Java, but Indian art disappeared in the fourteenth century, 
when the island became again completely Javanese. Indian 
art extended also to Burma, Siam, and Cambodia, where it 
has flourished with local variations. It is likely that the art 
of southern China received its impulse, in some measure, by 
way of Farther India, even though Chinese art in general 


was inspired by Indian art that travelled through Thibet 
from Gandhara. 

Chinese Sculpture. — There is in China little stone sculp- 
ture of large size, and even that is, for the most part, of in- 
ferior quality. There are some reliefs of the Han dynasty 
(206 B.C.-221 A.D.), some rock-cut reliefs of later date, a few 
colossal figures of men and of animals set up along roads, 
but in general Chinese sculpture is an art of small dimen- 
sions. It employs, however, many materials — bronze, 
stone, especially jade, wood, lacker, ivory, and porcelain — 
both for work in the round and for reliefs. 

Early Chinese Art. — Sculpture of the Shang dynasty 
(1766?-1122 B.C.) and the Chu dynasty (1122-255 B.C.) is 
known to us only by bronze vessels, sometimes in the shape 
of animals, sometimes adorned with human or animal forms 
(often symbolic or fantastic) and geometrical decoration. 
Possibly some jades may belong to these early times, but as 
yet there is no certainty on this point. Hellenistic influence 
appears in decoration under the Han dynasty (206 B.c- 
221 A.D.). Buddhism was introduced in 67 a.d. and Bud- 
dhist art came in its train, though at first only in the form of 
imported objects. In grave-chambers chiefly in the province 
of Shantung are reliefs which belong apparently to the second 
century a.d. They are lightly carved or engraved in very 
flat relief. The subjects are taken from Chinese history 
and legend, and no foreign influence is discernible. The 
design is clear, orderly, and natural, and the work shows a 
sureness of method by no means primitive, though there 
are many faults in drawing. These may, perhaps, be the 
results of decadence, and at any rate these carvings are 
probably the work of mere artisans. They may represent 
an early art, the other monuments of which have been lost. 

Buddhist Art. — Chinese art from the end of the Han 
dynasty (221 a.d.) to the end of the Yuan dynasty (1368 
A.D.) was purely Buddhistic, though Buddhism was pro- 
scribed about the middle of the ninth century and about 
45,000 Buddhist temples and monasteries are said to have 
been destroyed. Four centuries later Buddhism was, how- 


ever, again the ruling religion. With Buddhism there came 
into Chinese art a great variety of ornamental motifs and of 
subjects, most important of which was the human form as 
seen in figures of Buddha and various divinities. The 
Buddhism of China is the northern type, and Chinese sculp- 
ture is derived from the Gandhara. It is therefore Hel- 
lenistic, as is seen in the flow of draperies, the treatment of 
hair, greater definiteness in human forms, and clearer con- 
nection of actions, as compared with Indian sculpture in gen- 
eral. In northern China the human figure is elongated be- 
yond nature ; in southern China it is short and broad. The 
northern type is seen also in works from Afghanistan, Bactria, 
and other regions of central Asia, and in those from Korea. 
The chief figures of Chinese sculpture in the round are the 
seated Buddha and the seated Kuan Yin, the deity of com- 
passion, who was originally male in India, but is often female 
in China and regularly so, under the name of Kwannon, in 
Japan. Standing figures of Buddha and Kuan Yin are also 
numerous. There is much relief work, the subjects of which 
are chiefly legends of the Buddha, in addition to lions, 
elephants, and fabulous beasts. In the lions, dragons, 
unicorns, and the like there is much fantastic.exaggeration. 
The Tang and Sung Dynasties. — Buddhist art was gener- 
ally prevalent in China by the fourth century a.d. In the 
fifth century it was still a little archaic, but in the sixth cen- 
tury it attained great excellence of technique and freedom 
in posture and motion (Fig. 194). It reached its greatest 
height under the Tang dynasty (618-907 a.d.). The strik- 
ing, animated, and powerful figures in the reliefs of the Lung- 
men caves of Honen date from the seventh century. The 
reaction against Buddhism and the reversion to the religion 
of Lao-tse, or Confucianism, in the ninth century led to the 
rejection of some elements of Buddhist art and the de- 
velopment of an art that was more national and more real- 
istic. Lao-tse was the chief saint. He is represented as a 
bald-headed, bearded old man, riding on a bull or a stag, 
doubtless in conscious opposition to the youthful figures of 
Buddha. Often Lao-tse is regarded as the god of longevity. 



At this time historical personages were deified, and they as 
well as Lao-tse were represented with the greatest naturalism. 
This kind of sculpture continued through the Sung dynasty 

(960-1278 A.D.), though 
Buddhist sculpture also 
continued to exist. 

The Yuan, Ming, and 
Tilling Dynasties . — Un- 
der the Mongol Tartar 
Yuan dynasty (1260- 
1.3().S A.D.) the Thibetan 
form of Buddhism was 
introduced, with its hosts 
of demons, and at the 
same time some new Ind- 
ian and Persian in- 
fluences are noticed in 
Chinese art. Under the 
Mongol Ming dynasty 
(1368-1644 A.D.)" fine, 
small sculpture of various 
materials, including por- 
celain, was produced, and 
along the road that led to 
the Ming tombs colossal 
human and animal fig- 
ures were set up. These 
aim at nobility and 
grandeur, but are jejune 
in execution. Sculpture, 
especially in works of 
small dimensions, of 
bronze, ivory, wood, and 
porcelain, continued to 
flourish under the Manchu Thsing dynasty (1644-1912 
A.D.). The execution is often exquisite in detail, but 
there is little originality or real progress, and in the latter 
part of the time deterioration is noticeable. The best 

Figure 194. — Kuan Yin. Chinese; 
Late Sixth or Early Seventh Century ; 
Stone; above Life Size. Museum of Fine 
Arts, lioston. 


sculpture of this long period was under Khang-Hi (1662- 
1723 A.D.), Yung-Ching (1723-1736 a.d.), and Kin Long 
(1736-1796 A.D.). 

Thibet and Korea. — In Thibet sculpture is derived al- 
most entirely from Gandhara art, except that real naturalism 
appears in the portraits of the Grand Lama. The sculpture 
of Korea is perhaps best studied in Japan. It was derived 
from China, though some influence was exerted from Thibet. 
The elongated human figure of northern Chinese art pre- 
dominates, but the broad figure of southern China was also 
known, and before the sixth century a.d. the two were com- 
bined, and Korean sculpture appears as a national art. 

Japanese Sculpture. — Japanese sculpture is derived en- 
tirely from China, at first through Korea. The large works 
are chiefly figures of Buddha and Kwannon (the Chinese 
Kuan Yin), all of which are strictly "frontal" in attitude, 
though other sculptures exhibit great life and freedom in 
pose and gesture. The Buddha figures, some of which are 
of colossal size, show clearly their connection, through the 
Buddhist art of China and India, with Hellenistic sculpture. 
The small works of Japanese sculpture exhibit immense 
diligence in the execution of details, wonderful naturalism, 
and surpassing sense of decorative values. 

Early Sculpture Korean. Japanese History. — In the 
early religion of Japan there was no place for images, and 
nothing is known of Japanese sculpture before the introduc- 
tion of Buddhism from Korea, in 552 a.d. By 593 a.d, the 
new religion was definitively triumphant. With Buddhism 
the perfected Korean sculpture was introduced, and the 
works of sculpture created under the emperor (Mikado) 
Suiko (593-628 a.d.), some of which are remarkably vig- 
orous, animated, and expressive, are probably for the most 
part, at least, the works of Korean sculptors. At this time, 
and for a considerable period, the province of Yamato was 
the centre of political, intellectual, and artistic development 
in Japan. The capital was at Nara until it was moved to 
Kyoto by the emperor Kuammu (782-806 a.d.). In the 
ninth century Nara and Kyoto flourished side by side. At 


this time and for several centuries thereafter the great 
families were struggling with each other and with the INIikado 
for the supreme power. The Minamoto were opposed first 
by the Taira and then by the Fujiwara. Finally Yoritomo, 
of the Minamoto family, was recognized by the Mikado as 
Shogun (Tycoon), with independent temporal power, and 
established his capital in 1184 a.d. at Kamakura. The 
Mikado, now merely a nominal sovereign, had his court 
at Kyoto. In 1334 the family of the Ashikaga obtained the 
chief power, and from 1603 to 1867 the Shoguns were of the 
Tokagawa family. 

Nara Epoch. Ninth Century. — Sculpture in the seventh 
century was essentially Korean, though even at that early 
date some Indian influence appears and the qualities of the 
national Japanese art — anatomical study, li>'eliness of 
pose, and correctness of form — begin to make themselves 
evident. The first Xara epoch (708-749) was a brilliant 
period. Statues of Buddha and Kwannon were dignified 
and serious, figures of guardian deities were energetic and 
frightful, small clay statuettes realistic and amusing. The 
colossal seated bronze statue of Buddha at Nara, which 
would, if standing, be nearly 140 feet in height, is a remark- 
ably fine and dignified figure. It was cast in 739, but the 
head was restored about a thousand years later. There is 
little or nothing in the style of this colossus which is native 
Japanese. Evidently the foreign influence was still dom- 
inant. One of the most noted sculptors of this time was 
the Korean priest Gyoji Bosatsu (d. 749). The second 
Nara epoch, from 749 until the removal of the capital to 
Kyoto, was a period of decadence in art, though fine technique 
is frequently seen in works of this time. In the early part 
of the ninth century renewed study of the Chinese art of the 
Tang dynasty (eighth century) led to a revival of art. The 
Japanese artists wished, apparently, to copy their Chinese 
models exactly, but were unable to restrain their own orig- 
inal ability, and produced works of very high merit. It is 
true, however, that at this time — and indeed at all times — 
painting, rather. than sculpture, was the chief Japanese art. 



Fujiwara and Kamakura l^pochs. — In the first Fujiwara 
epoch (888-986) excellent work was done, to be sure, but on 
the whole art lost something of its vigor. In the middle 
Fujiwara epoch (986-1072) the sculptor Jocho (d. 1053) 
tried to revive the grand art of the early Nara times and to 
combine it with the style of the Tang dynasty. Another 
sculptor of the same period was Eshin Sozu (942-1017). 
The style of Jocho was continued during 
the late Fujiwara epoch (1072-1155). In 
.the Kamakura period (1186-1333) there 
was much activity among sculptors. Their 
work is brilliant, lively, natural, and ex- 
pressive (Fig. 195). The most famous 
sculptor of this time was Unkei (about 
1180-1215), unless that title be given to 
his son Tankei. Koben, also a son of 
Unkei, was a noted sculptor, and others 
of about the same time were Jitsiigen, 
Kwakei, and Kosho. The colossal seated 
bronze Buddha (Amida) of Kamakura, 
once in the great temple which has disap- 
peared, was cast in 1252 by Ono Goroyema. 
It is a most impressive work, fine in tech- 
nique and admirable in its calm, contem- 
plative dignity. Much fine engraved armor 
also belongs to this time. 

Ashikdga^and Tokugdra Periods. — The 
style of Unkei continued to prevail 
during the Ashikaga period (1334-1567), 
but there is a tendency toward excessive attention to de- 
tail and toward over-elaboration. In the fifteenth century 
the "Chinese Renaissance" took place. This was a re- 
vival of the study of earlier (Sung dynasty, 950-1278) 
Chinese painting, which had its effect also upon sculpture. 
The Buddhist sculpture of large size had outlived its power 
in Japan and had become conventional. In portraiture 
good, simple characteristic work was done by Katakin and 
other sculptors, especially in wood. Naturalistic sculpture 

FiGnRE 195. — 
Seishi paying Rev- 
erence to a Soul 
newly arrived in 
Paradise. Wooden 
Statuette. Kama- 
kflra Period. Mu- 
seum of Fine Arts, 


of small size is also noticeable at this time. In the sixteenth., 
and seventeenth centuries many memorial statues were;; 
erected, generally examples of idealistic portraiture, not of 
pure realism. The Tokugara period (1603-1867) was for 
the most part a time of general artistic activity. The temple 
erected at Nikko in memory of the Shogun Yeyes (d. 1616) 
by the architect and sculptor Zengoro is a marvel of con- 
struction in wood, adorned with reliefs of surpassing richness 
and delicacy — dragons, trees, plants, animals, and gods. 
Other remarkable work by Zengoro is to be seen at Kyoto. 
On the exterior of the temple of Matsunomori, at Nagasaki, 
are thirty slabs of reliefs by Kiushu, scenes of Japanese 
industrial life. These, as well as Zengoro's works, are richly 
colored. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 
sculpture of small dimensions became more important, along- 
side of the great decorative work in wood. Many of the 
small bronzes are marvels of delicate workmanship and truth 
to life, testifying to the careful training, unwearied industry, 
keen observation, and sympathetic imagination of their 
makers. The names of a number of artists in this kind 
of work are known, among them Kinai, of the sixteenth 
century, Tomoyoshi and Yeiyiu of the latter part of the 
seventeenth and early part of the eighteenth centuries, Miwa 
the elder, of the middle of the eighteenth century, and Tad- 
otoshi, who lived somewhat later. In the latter part of the 
nineteenth century .Japanese art was greatly affected, not 
altogether to its improvement, by the art of Europe. 

Eastern and Western Art. — The- influence of Greek art is 
seen in the earliest known sculptures of India, and from India 
the art of sculpture spread, with Buddhism, to the other 
countries of the Far East. So sculpture even in China and 
Japan is, in a sense, the distant descendant of Greek art. 
But the spirit of the East is not the spirit of Greece, and the 
sculpture of India, China, and Japan breathes the contem- 
plative, fantastic, dreamy, and at the same time often in- 
tensely human spirit of the East, not the more scientific 
spirit which shows itself from the beginning in the art of 


Some of the more important and accessible books on the subject of 
sculpture are here mentioned in the hope of aiding the readers of this 
brief manual who wish to pursue their studies further. Bibliographical 
information is contained in many of the books mentioned below : the 
Archdologischer Anzeiger, published by the German Archaeological 
Institute, contains a bibliography of Greek and Roman art ; the Orien- 
talistische Literaturzeitung gives the titles of works on ancient Oriental 
art ; the Internationale Bibliographie der Kunstivissenschaft is an exhaus- 
tive annual bibliography of art in general ; and a bibliography which 
covers all periods except modern times is pubhshed annually in the 
American Journal of Archaeology. Catalogues of museums and re- 
ports of excavations are often very important to the student of sculp- 
ture. Much information and many illustrations relating to sculpture 
are found in the volumes of "Les Villes d'Art celebres, " "Beriihmte 
Kunststatten, " "Maitres de I'Art," " KUnstlermonographien, " and 
other series of popular books on art. 

General Works 

Periodicals. — American Journal of Archaeology ; Archaeologia ; Archi- 
vio storico dell' Arte; Bollettino d'Arte; Burlington Magazine; 
Gazette des Beaux-Arts ; Monatshefte fur Kunstwissenschaft ; Miinch- 
ner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst; Rassegna d'Arte; Revue Arch eo- 
logique; Revue de I'Art ancien et moderne; Zeitschrift fiir bildende 

D'Agincourt, Histoire de I'Art (six volumes, with 325 plates), 1823. 

E. Benezit, Dictionnaire critique et documentaire des peintres, dessina- 

ieurs, graveurs et sculpteurs . . . 1911 — (in progress). 
A. M. Brooks, Architecture and the Allied Arts, 1914. 
J. Burckhardt, The Cicerone (last English ed. 1908). 

F. Burger and others, Handbuch der Kunstivissenschaft (an illustrated 

work in 14 volumes, as yet only begun). 

C. J. Cavallucci, Manuale di Storia della Scultura, 1884. 

Cicognara, Storia della Scultura, 1823-1825 (2d ed.). 

Dehio and Winter, Kunstgeschichte in BUdern (a great number of illus- 
trations of the art of all ages, grouped on folio pages). 

Encyclopaedia Britannica, s.v. Sculpture, also under the names of 
distinguished sculptors. 



E. Faiire, liistoire de l' AH, 1909-. 

G. F. Hill, One Hundred Masterpieces of Sculpture, from the Sixth Cen- 
tury B.C. to the Time of Michelangelo, 1909. 

W. Liibke, History of Sculpture (several editions exist in German and 

Marquand and Frothingham, Text-hook of the Histori/ of Sculpture, 1896. 

Monuments et memoir'es publiees par VArademie des Inscriptions (Monu- 
ments Plot; expensive volumes with fine illustrations, appearing 
about once a year). 

Nagler, Allgemeines Kiinstlerlexicon. 

R. Peyre, Repertoire chronologique de Vhistoire universelle des Beaux- 
Arts, no date; about 1910. 

S. Reinach, Apollo, an Illustrated Manual of the History of Art throughout 
the Ages, 2AeA.,\%lid. 

Schnaase, Geschichte der bildenden Kiin.'ste, 2d ed., 1855-1879. 

Springer, Handbuch der Kmutgeschichte, 9th ed. 191 1-. 

L. von Sybel, Weltgeschichte der Kunst im Altertum, 2d ed., 1903. 

Thieme and Becker, Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Kiinstler von 
der Antike bis zur (kgemcarf. (a great work in many volumes, not 
yet completed). 

K. Woermann, Geschichte der Kunst, 1900-1911. 

Materials axd Methi.ids 

H. Bliimner, Technologic und Terminologie der Gewerbe und Kiinste 

bei Griechen und R'dmern, 1.S87, new ed. in preparation. 
Encyclopaedia Britannica, s.v. Srulpture, also s.v. Metal-working. 
Daremberg and Saglio, Uictionnaire des antiquites grei'ques et romaines, 

s.v. Statuaria. 
H. Liier, Technik der B ronze plastik (Monographien des Kunstgewerbes, 

IV, pp. 19 fl^.). 
E. Pernice, in Jahreshefte des Oe,iterreichischen Archdologischen Institutes, 

VII, 1904, pp. 154 ff. ; VIII, 1905, pp. 51 ff. ; XI, 1908, pp. 212 ff. 
Albert Toft, Modelling and Sculpture, 1911. 

Ancient Sculpture in General 

Periodicals. — Those mentioned under General Works, also Jahrbuch 
des kaiserlich deutschen archaologischen huiituts; Jahreshefte des 
oesterreichischen archaologi.ichen Institutes; Monumenti Antichi 
(Accademia dei Lincei) ; and pubhcations, annual or irregular, of 
many learned societies. 

Perrot and Chipiez, Histoire de I' Art dans I'Antiquite, Vols. I-X, 1882- 
1914 (Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Phoenicia, Cyprus, Judaea, 
Sardinia, Asia Minor, Persia, Greece in the prehellenic and archaic 
periods. A great storehouse of information, with many illustra- 


tions. Vols. I-V are translated into English under separate 
titles — History of Art in Egypt, History of Art in Chaldaea and 
Assyria, etc. — each French volume forming two in English. The 
translation of vols. IV and V is very bad). 

Rayet, Monuments de I' Art antique, 1884. 

See also the General Works mentioned above. 

Egyptian Sculpture 

Periodicals. — Ancient Egypt; The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology; Bul- 
letin de I'Institut egyptien; Recueil de tramiix relatifs a la philologie 
et a I'archeologie egyptiennes et assyriennes; Mitteilungen der 
deutschen Morgenldndschen Gesellschaft ; Memoirs and Reports of 
the Egypt Exploration Fund. 

F. W. von Hissing, Denkmaler Aegyptischer Sculpttir, 1913 (150 plates, 

with explanatory text). 
L. Borchardt, Kunstwerke aus dem Aegyptischcn Museum zti Kairo, 

1912 (50 plates, with brief text). 
J. Capart, Primitive Art in Egypt, 1906. 
Catalogue general des aniiquites egyptiennes du musee du Cairc (a great 

work in many volumes by different authors). 

G. Maspero, Egyptian Archaeology, 5th ed., 1902; .Irt in Egypt ("Ars 

Una" series), 1912; Egypte (Histoire de I'Art, VII), 1913. 

Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in Ancient Egypt. 

The illustrations are still valuable in several early works : Prisse 
d'Avennes' Histoire de Fart egyptienne; Lepsius, Denkmaler aus 
Aegypten und Nubien; Champoliion, Monuments de l' Egypte et 
de la Nuhie; Rossellini, / monumenti dell' Egitto e della Nubia. 

Babylonian and Assyrian Sculpture 

Periodicals. — Mitteilungen and Zciischrift der deutschen Morgenldn- 
dischen Gesellschaft; Wiener Zeitschrift fiir die Kimde des Morgen- 
landes; Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie ; publications of various Orien- 
tal Societies. 

E. Babelon, Manual of Oriental Antiquities, new ed., 1906. 

P. S. P. Handcock, Mesopotamian Archaeology, 1912. 

Heuzey, Un palais chaldeen, 1900. 

L. W. King, A History of Sumer and Akad, 1910. 

R. Koldewey, Das loieder erstehende Babylon, 1913 (trans. "The Ger- 
man Excavations at Babylon," 1914). 

B. Meissner, GrundzUge der babylonisch-assyrischen Plastik, 1915 ("Der 
alte Orient"). 

A. Paterson, Assyrian Sculptures. The Palace of Sennacherib, 1912. 

Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in Chaldaea and Assyria. 

Pinches, The Gates of Balawat, 1880. 


De Sarzec, D ecoui'crlr.i en Chaldee, 1884- (an elaborate and richly 
illustrated account of discoveries). 

Relatively early books which may still be consulted with profit are 
Botta and Flandin, Monuments de Ninive; Layard, Monuments 
of Nineveh; Loftus, Travels and Rssearches in Chaldaea.and Susi- 
ana; Place, Ninive et I'Asayrie; Rassam, Recent Discoveries of 
Ancient Babylonian Cities; George Smith, Assyrian Discoveries. 

HiTTiTE Sculpture 

J. Garstang, The Land, of the Hiitites, 1910. 

Humann and Puchstein, Reiscn in Kleinasien and. Nord-Syrien, 1890. 

L. Messerschmidt, Die Hittiter ("Der alte Orient"), 1903 (trans. "The 
Hittites, " 1903; in the Annual Report of the Smithsonian Insti- 
tution, 1903, "The Ancient Hittites"). 

Parrot and Chipiez, History of Art in Sardinia, Judaea, Syria, and Asia 

O. Puchstein and others, Boghaz Keui, Die Bauwerke (Deutsche Orient- 
Gesellschaft), 1912. 

W. Wright, The Empire of the Hittites, 2d ed., 1886. 

Persian Sculpture 

Dieulafov, L'ari antique de la Perse, 1884-1889 ; L'acropole de Su-se, 

L. W. King and others (British Museum), The Sculptures and Inscrip- 
tions of Darius the Great on. the Rock of Behistun in Persia, 1907. 

Noldeke, Per.sepolis, die achaemenischen und sassanidischen Denkmiiler, 

M. L. Pillet, Le palai-s de Darius I a. Suse, 1914. 

Texier, Description de I'Armenie, de la Perse et de la Mesopotamie, 1842- 

Phoenician and Cypriote Sculpture 

Perrot and Chipiez, History of Art in Phoenicia and Cyprus. 

J. L. Myres, Handbook of the Cesnola Collection of Antiquities from 

Cyprus, 1915. 
J. L. Myres and M. Ohnefalsch-Richter, Catalogue of the Cyprus Museum, 


Greek and Roman Sculpture 

(Works treating of Greek and Roman art, not exclusively of either). 
P. Arndt and W. Amelung, Photographische Einzelaufnahmen antiker 
Seulpturen nach Auswahl und mit Text, 1893-1913 (photographs 
and a catalogue containing discussions). 


Baumeister, Denkmaler des klassischen Altertums, 3 vols., 1885-1888. 

Brunn-Bruckmann-Arndt, Denkmaler griechischer und rbmischer Sculptur 
(large photographic plates; in the second series, now in progress, 
which begins with pi. 501, elaborate discussions accompany the 

Brunn-Bruckmann-Arndt, Griechische und rimische Porirais (a series 
of plates, etc., similar to the Denkmaler griechischer und rbmischer 

Daremberg and Saglio, Dictionnuire des aniiquites grecques et romaines 
(in progress). 

R. Delbriick, Antike PoHrdts, 1912. 

A. Furtwangler, Intermezzi, 1896. 

S. Lami, Dictionnaire des sculpteurs de I'antiquite jusqu'au VI" Steele 
de notre ere, 1884. 

E. V. Mach, Handbook of Greek and Roman Sculpture to accompany 
a Collection of Reproductions of Greek and Roman Sculpture, 1906 
(a catalogue, with descriptions and discussions, accompanying 
500 illustrations). 

S. Reinach, Repertoire de la statuaire grecque et romaine, 1897-1910; 
Repertoire de reliefs grecs et romaines, 1909-1912 (great numbers 
of small cuts of statues and reliefs respectively, with bibliographi- 
cal notes). 

Roscher, Ausfiihrliches Lexikon der griechisclien und romischen Mytho- 
logie (in progress; contains many illustrations). 

Smith, Dictiondry of Antiquities. 

Wissowa and Kroll, Paidy's Real-Encyclopddie der classischen Alter- 
tumswissenschaft (in progress). 

Several other useful illustrated dictionaries of antiquities exist. 

Greek ScuLPruRE 

Periodicals. — Those mentioned under General Works and Ancient 
Sculpture in General, also Bulletin de correspondance hellenique; 
Journal of Hellenic Studies; Mitteilungen des kaiserlich deutschen 
archaologischen Instituts, Athenische Abteilung; Revue des etudes 
grecs; Annual of the British School at Athens. 

J. Baikie, The Sea-Kings of Crete, 1913. 

R. Dussaud, Les cimUsations prehelleniques dans le bassin de la mer 
Egee, 2d ed., 1914. 

A. J. Evans, The Nine Minoan Periods, 1914. 

A. Frickenhaus and others, Tiryns. Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen des 
K. d. Archaologischen Instituts in Athen, 1912. 

H. R. Hall, Aegean Archaeology, 1915. 

A. Mosso, The Dawn of Mediterranean Civilization, 1911. 

Perrot and Chipiez, Histoire de I'art dans I'antiquite, Vol. V. 

Tsountas and Manatt, The Mycenaean Age, 2d ed., 1914. 


M. Collignon, Histoire de la sculpture grecque, 1892-1897 ; Les statue» 

funeraires dans I'art grec, 1913 ; Le Parthenon, 1914. 
A. Conze, Bie attischen Grabreliefs (a great publication not yet fully 

Fowler and Wheeler, Handbook of Greek Archaeology, 1909. 
A. Furtwangler, Masterpieces of Greek Sculpture, 1S95. 
E. A. Gardnev, Hamlbook of Greek Scidptiire, revised ed., 1910; Six 

Greek Sculptors, 1911. 
P. Gardner, The Principles of Greek Art, 1914; Sculptured Tovihs of 

Hellas, 1896; Ti/pes of Greek Coins, 1S83. 
H. Stuart Jones, Seleci Passages from Ancient Writers illustrative of the 

History of Greek Sculpture, 189o. 
A. Joubin, La sculpture grecque entre les guerres mediqves et Vepoqae de 

Pericles, 1901. 
R. Kekule v. Stradonitz, Die griechische Skulptur, 2d ed., 1907. 
H. Lecliat, Au musce de Vacropole d'Athenes, 1903. 
W. Lermann, Altgriechische Plastik, 1907. 
E. Loewy, Bie griechische Plastik, 1911. 
A. Murray, The Sculptures of the Parthenon, 1903. 
J. Overbeck, Bie antiken Schriftquellen zur Geschichte der hildenden 

Kiin^te bei den Griechen, 1868; Geschichte der griechischen Plastik, 

4th ed., 1893-1894. 
Perrot and Chipiez, Histoire de I'art dans Vantiqmtc, Vols. \'I-X. 
R. B. Richardson, A History of Greek Sculpture, 1910. 
H. Schrader, Archaische Manuorskulpturen im Akropolismuseum zu 

Athen, 1909. 
A. H. Smith, The Sculptures of the Parthenon, 1910. 
H. B. Walters, The Art of the Greeks, 1906. 

Etruscan Sculpture 

J. Martha, L'art etrusque, 1899; Archeologie etrusque et romaine, no 
Special information concerning Etruscan sculpture must be sought 
in archaeological periodicals, catalogues of museums, and the like. 

Roman Sculpture 

Periodicals. — Those mentioned under General Works and Ancient 
Sculpture in General, also Bullettino della conimissione archeologica 
comunale di Roma; Journal of Roman Studies; Mitteilungen des 
kaiserlich deutschen archaologischen Instituts, romische Abteilung; 
Notizie degli Scari di Antichitd; Papers of the British School in 

Altmann, Bie rbmischen Grahaltdre der Kaiserzeit, 1905. 

C. Cichorius, Bie Trajanssdule, 1896-1900. 


E. Petersen, Ara Pads Aiigustae, 1902. 

A. Riegl, Die spatromische KuMtindustrie nach den Funden in Oester- 

reich-Ungarn, 1901. 
Mrs. Arthur Strong, Roman Sculpture from Augustus to Constantine, 

L. V. Sybel, Christliche Antike, Vol. 2, 1909. 
H. B. Walters, The Art of the Romans, 1911. 

F. WickhofF, Roman Art, 1900 (first appeared as "Die Wiener Genesis," 


Sculpture of Christian Times in General 

Periodicals and general works mentioned above. 

Dohme, Kunst und Kunstler des Mittelaltcrs und tier Neuzeit, 1877-1886. 

A. Michel, Histoire de I'art depuis les premiers temps chretiens jusqu'd, 

nos jours (a comprehensive work in many volumes and by many 

authors; not yet completed). 
Musee de Sculpture Comparee (Palais du Trocadero), les chefs-d'osuvre 

d' architecture et de sculpture, du XIP au XIX" sleds, 1913. 
W. R. Lethaby, Mediaeval Art from the Peace of the Church to the Eve of 

the Renaissance, S12-13S0, new ed., 1912. 
The "Ars Una" series of small volumes by different authors contains 

chapters on the sculpture of the different countries. 

Early Christian and Byzantine Sculpture 

Periodicals. — Those mentioned under General Works, also Bullet- 
tino di archeologia cristiana; Byzantinische Zeitschrift; Revue de 
I'art Chretien; Romische Quartalschrift fur christliche Altertiimer und 

0. M. Dalton, Byzantine Art and Archaeology, 1911. 

Ch. Diehl, Manuel d'Art byzantin, 1910. 

R. Garrucci, Storia dell' arte cristiana, 1873-1881 (2 volumes on ivor- 
ies, sarcophagi, etc.). 

H. Marucchi, Elements d'arcMologie chretien, 1889, 1890. 

Millet, in Michel, Histoire de I'art, vol. I. 

Perate, in Michel, Histoire de I'art, vol. I. 

A. Perate, L'archeologie chretienne, 1894. 

J. Strzygowski, Kleinasien ein Neuland der Kunstgeschichte, 1903; 
Orient oder Romf 1901. 

L. v. Sybel, Christliche Antike, vol. II, 1909. 

Mediaeval Sculpture in Italy 

Periodicals and General Works already mentioned. 
E. Bertaux, in Michel, Histoire de I'art, vol. I. 


W. Bode, Itdienuche PlaMik, 1911. 

P. Bouchaud, La sculpture venetienne, 1913. 

M. Mattioni, // duomo di Onieto, 1914. 

C. Ricci, Art in Northern Italy, 1911 ("Ars Una" series). 

A. Venturi, Storia dell' arte italiana, vols. I, II, III. 

W. G. Waters, Italian Sculptors, 1911. 

Max Ziminermann, Oberitalienische PlaMik itn Mittelalter, 1897. 

Mediaeval Sculpture in France 

Periodicals and General Works as above. 

A. Boinet, Les sculptures de la facade occidentale de la cathedrale de 

Bourges, 1913. 
L. Gonse, L'art gothique, 1890; La sculpture fran^aise, 189.5. 
L. Hourticq, Art in France, 1911 ("Ars Una" series). 
A. Humbert, La sculpture sous les dues de Bourgogne (lo61-lJf83), 1913. 

E. Male, Religious . Art in France; Thirteenth Century, 1914 (L'art 

religieux du XIIP siecle en France) ; L'art religieux de la fin du 

moyen age en Frarwe, 1908. 
M. and E. Marriage, The Sculptures of Chartres Cathedral, 1910. 
Michel, Histoire de l'art, vol. II. 
L. Pillion, Les sculpteurs fran^ais du XIIP siecle ("Maitres de l'art" 

series), 1912. 

Mediaeval Sculpture in Germany 

Periodicals and General Works as above. 

W. Bode, Geschichte der deutschen Plastik, 188.5-1887. 

Dehio and von Bezold, Die Denkmaler der deutschen Bildhauerkunsf, 

G. Delahache, La cathedrale de Strasbourg, 1910. 
P. Hartmann, Die gotische Monumental-Plastik in Schwaben, 1910. 

F. Liibbecke, Die gotische Kolner Plastik, 1910. 
Michel, Histoire de l'art, vol. II. 

M. Sauerlandt, Deutsche Plastik des Mittelalters, 3d ed., 1911. 
A. Schmarsow and E. v. Flottwell, Meisterwerke der deutschen Bild- 
nerei des Mittelalters, 1910-. 

Mediaeval Sculpture in the Netherlands 

Michel, Histoire de l'art, vol. II. 

M. Rooses, Art in Flanders, 1914 ("Ars Una" series). 


Mediaeval Sculptuee in England 

Periodicals and General Works as above. 

W. Armstrong, Art in Great Britain and Ireland, 1909 ("Ars Una" 

C. Enlart, in Michel, Histmre de I'art, vols. II, III. 
E. S. Prior and A. Gardner, An Account of Medieval Figure-Sculpture 

in England, 1912. 
L. Weaver, Memorials and Monuments, 1915. 

Mediaeval Sculpture in Spain 

Periodicals and General Works as above. 

E. Bertaux, in Michel, Histoire de Fart, vol. II. 
A. F. Calvert, Sculpture in Spain, 1912. 

M. Dieulafoy, Art in Spain and Portugal, 1913 ("Ars Una" series); 
La statuaire polychrome en Espagne, 1908. 

F. Araujo Gomez, Historia de la escultura en Espana, 188.5. 

P. Lafart, La sculpture espagnole, 1909 (Bibliothfeque de I'enseignement 
des Beaux-Arts). 

Sculpture of the Renaissance in General 

Periodicals and General Works already mentioned. 

E. Miintz, Histoire de I'art pendant la Renaissance, 3 vols., 1889-1895 

(chiefly on Italian art). 
L. Scott (Mrs. Baxter), Sculpture, Renaissance and Modern, 1886. 

Sculpture of the Renaissance in Italy 

General Works mentioned above. 

G. Beaume, Michel Ange, 1912. 

E. Bertaux, Donatello ("Maitres d'art"), 1910. 

W. Bode, Italienische Plastik, 1911; Florentiner Bildhauer der Renais- 
sance, 2d ed., 1910. 

M. V. Boehm, Lorenzo Bernini, 1912 ("Kiinstlermonographien"). 

P. Bouchaud, La sculpture venetienne, 1913. 

H. Brockhaus, Michelangelo und die Medici-Kapelle, 1912. 

J. Burckhardt, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, 5th English 
ed., 1904. 

Benvenuto Cellini, Autobiography. 

M. Crutwell, Donatello, 1911. 

J. Desjardins, La vie et I'ceuvre de Jean Bologne, 1883. 

H. Focillon, Benvenuto Cellini, 1912 ("Les grands artistes"). 

L. F. Freeman, Italian Sculptors of the Renaissance, 1902. 


K. Frey, Michelangiolo Buonarroti, -icln Lehen iind seine U'crke, 191 1-. 

R. S. Gower, Mirlnid Angelo, 1903. 

E. Hildebrandt, Michelangelo, 1913. 

C. Holroyd, Michelangelo, 1903. 

A. Manjuand, Delia Rohhias in Avierica, 1912; Liica delta Robbia, 1914. 

Michel, Ilistoire de I'art, vols. Ill, IV, V. 

E. Molinier, Benvenuto Cellini, 1894. 

R. Norton, Bernini and Other Studies, 1914. 

M. Reymond, Le Bernin ("Maitres dc I'art"), 191 I. 

C. Ricci, Art in Northern Italy ("Ars Una" sories), 1911; Baroque 

Architecture and Sculpture in Italy, 1912; Michel-Ange, 1902. 
A. Riegl, Filipix) Baldinucci's Vita (tea Ciomiini Lorenzo Bernini, 1912; 

Die Enistehinig der BarockkunM in, Rom, 1908. 
C. Strutt, Michael Angelo, 1903. 
.J. A. Symonds, The Life oj Michelangelo, 3d efi., 1899 ; The Renaissance 

in Italy, The Fine Arts, last ed.^ 1913. 
H. Thode, Michelangelo, kritisrhe Untersuchuiigen iiber seine IVerke, 

1913; Michelanqelo und das Ende der Renaissance, 1903-1912. 

A. Venturi, Storia deW arte italianfi, vols. IV- (in progress). 
W. G. Waters, Italian Sculptors, 1911. 

H. Wolfflin, The Art of the Italian Renaissance, 1903 (also 1913). 

Sculpture of the Renaissance i.\ France 

General Works already mentioned. 

Lady E. Dilke, Freru:h Architects an/1 Sculptors of the Eighteenth Century, 

L. Gonse, La scnljdure en France depiiis Ic XIV' siecle, 1891. 

L. Hourticq, Art in France ("Ars Una" series), 191 1. 

H. .louin, Antoine Coysevo.r, 1883 ; Jean (loujon, 1906. 

S. Lami, Didionnaire des sculpitenrs dc I'ecole franco ise du moycn age au, 
regne de Louis XIV ; . . . sous Ic regne de Louis XIV ; . . . au 
XVIIP siecle; . . . an XIX'^ siecle (in progress). 

Micliel, Ilistoire de I'art, vols. Ill, IV, V. 

H. Thirion, Les Adam et Clodion, 188.5. 

Sculpture of the Renaissance in Germany 

The General Works on German sculpture mentioned luider Mediaeval 

Sculpture in Germany. 
J. Baum, Die Ulmer Plastik vom 1500, 1911. 
P. Clemen, Die rheinische und die westfdlische Kunst, 1903. 

B. Daun, Adam Krafft, 1897. 

C. Headlam, Peter Vitcher, 1901. 

L. Reau, in Michel, Histoire de I'art, vol. V. 
G. Seeger, Peter Vischer der Aeltere, 1898. 


E. Tonnies, Tilmann Riemenschneider, 1900. 

F. Wanderer, Adam Krafft und seine Schule, 1896. 


J. de Bosschere, La sculpture anversoise, 1909 (collection des "Grands 

artistes des Pays Bas"). 
J. Helbig, La sculpture au pays de Liege, 1890. 
M. Rooses, Art in Flanders ("Ars Una" series), 1914. 
H. Rousseau, La sculpture beige aiix XVIP et XVI 11" siecles, 1911. 
P. Vitry, in Michel, Histoire de I'art, vol. V. 
W. Vogelsang, Die Holzskulptur der Niederlande, I, 1911, II, 1914. 

Sculpture of the Renaissance in England 

Sir W. Armstrong, Art in England ("Ars Una" series), 1909. 
P. Biver, in Michel, Histoire de I'art, vol. V. 
Encyclopaedia Britannica, article Sculpture. 
L. Weaver, Memorials and Monuments, 1915. 

Sculpture of the Renaissance in Spain 

The General Works on Spanish sculpture mentioned under Mediaeval 

Sculpture in Spain. 
E. Bertaux, in Michel, Histoire de I'art, vol. IV. 
J. Agapito y Revilla, Alonso Berruguete, 191.3. 
O. Fatigati, Escultura en Madrid, 1913. 

Modern Sculpture in Italy 

L. Callari, Storia dell' arte contemporanea italiana, 1909. 
A. G. Meyer, Canorn, 1898. 

Modern Sculpture in France 

G. B&edite, Al. Falgmere, 1902. 

L. Benedite, Les sculpteurs fran^ais contemporains, 1901. 

M. Ciolkowska, Rodin, 1912 ("Little Books on Art"). 

J. Cladel, Auguste Rodin, I'a'uvre et rhomme, 1908. 

E. Claris, De I'impreasionisme en sculpture (Rodin and Meunier), 190.3. 

M. Dreyfous, Ddou, 1903. 

D. C. Eaton, Handbook of Modern French Sculpture, 1913. 
L. de Fourcaud, Francois Rude, 1903. 

E. Guillaume, Franfois Rude, 1903. 

C. H. Hart and E. Biddle, Jean Antoine Houdon, 1911. 


H. Jouin, David d' Angers. 

G. Kahn, Auguste Rodin, 1909. 

S. Lami, Dictionnaire des sculpteurs de I'ecole franfaise du XIX' siecle, 

F. Lawton, Life and Work of Auguste Rodin, 1907. 

Modern Sculpture in the Netherlands, England, Germany, 
Denmark, Sweden, Spain, and Russia 

W. Armstrong, Art in Great Britain and Ireland ("Ars Una" series), 

M. Dieulafoy, Art in Spain and Portugal ("Ars Una" series), 1913. 
Lady Eastlake, Life of John Oihson, 1870. 
F. Eggers, Christian Daniel Rauch, 1873-1891. 

F. Araujo Gomez, Historia de la escultura en Espana, 1885. 

G. Gurlitt, Die deutsche Kunst des XIX Jahrhunderts, 1900. 
P. Lafart, La sculpture espagnole, 1909. 

E. Plon, Thorwaldsen's Life and Works, 1874. 

W. Radenberg, Moderne Plastik, 1912. 

S. Redgrave, Dictionary of Artists of the English School, 1874. 

M. Rooses, Art in Flanders ("Ai's Una" series), 1914. 

J. M. Thiele, The Life of Thorwaldsen (English translation), 1865. 

G. Treu, Max Klinger als Bildhaner, 1900 ; Constantin Meunier, 1903. 

L. Weaver, Memorials and Monuments (English monuments), 1915. 

Sculpture in the United States 

C. H. Caffin, American Masters of Sculpture, 1903. 

('. L. Hind, Augustus Si. Gaudens, 1908. 

.Juliet James, Sculpture of the Exposition Palaces and Courts, 1915. 

E. Neuhaus, The Art of the Exposition, 1915 (the Panama Exposition 

at San Francisco) ; The Galleries of the Exposition, 1915. 
Lorado Taft, American Sculpture, 1903, 2d edition, 1916. 

Note. Two periodicals. Art in America and Art atul Progress, 
in addition to the periodicals on art in general mentioned above, are 
of importance to the student of modern art. Many articles on sculp- 
ture and sculptors appear from time to time in the illustrated maga- 
zines and papers. Information concerning sculptors is also to be found 
in various dictionaries of biography. 

Sculpture in the Far East 

M. Anesaki, Buddhist Art in its Relation to Buddhist Ideals, 1915. 
K. Woermann, in Geschichte der Kunst, vol. I (a general account). 
L. D. Barnett, Antiquities of India, 1913. 

J. Burgess, The Ancient Monuments, Temples, and Sculptures of India 
. . ., 1897 and 1911 (folio plates). 


A. Foucher, I'art greco-bvddhique du Gandh&ra, 1905-. 

A. Griinwedel, Buddhist Art in India, 1911. 

M. Maindron, L'aH indien, 1908. 

A. Rea, South Indian Buddhist Antiquities, 1894. 

Reports of the Archaeological Survey of India. 

Vincent A. Smith, A History of Fine Art in India and Ceylon, 1911. 

F. Brinkley, Japan and China, their History, Arts, and Literature, 190.3. 

E. Chavannes, La scidpture sur pierre en Chine, 1893. 

E. F. Fenollosa, Epochs of Chinese and Japanese Art, 1912. 

F. Hirth, China and the Roman Orient, 1885 ; Ueber fremde Einfliisse 

in der chinesischen Kunst, 1896. 
J. E. Lodge, Introduction to the Collection of Chinese Sculpture, in the 

Museum of Fine Arts Bidletin, Boston, 1915. 
M. Paleologue, L'art chinois, 1887. 
L. Gonse, L'art japonais, 1900. 
T. Hayashi, Ilistoire de l'art du Japon, 1 900. 

G. C. Pier, Temple Treasures of Japan, 1914. 


AbeUa, G. B., 376. 

Adam, French sculptor, 315. 

Adams, Herbert, 399. 

Aegina, sculptm-e at, 68-71, 75, 79, 81. 

Agesander, of Antioch, 129; of 

Rhodes, 134. 
Agoracritus, 93, 94. 
Agostino di Duccio, 271. 
Aitken, Robert Ingersoll, 405. 
Akers, Benjamin Paul, 391. 
Alabaster, Assyrian, xxii, 31 ; Eng- 
lish, 234, 235, 237, 238, 239. 
Alamant, Enrich, 253. 
Alcaide, Zamorano, 376. 
Alcamenes, 83, 93, 94. 
Alcoverro, Jose de, 376. 
Aleman, Juan, 256 ; Rodrigo, 335. 
Aleu, Andres, 375. 
Alexander the Great, 43, 109, 119, 

125, 137, 166, 407. 
Algardi, Alessandro, 300. 
AUar, A. J., 362. 

Allegrain, Gabriel Christophe, 313. 
Allen, Charles John, 386. 
Almonacid, S., 337, 339. 
Alsina, Antonio, 376. 
Altar of Neptune, 150 ; of Peace, 

151-153, 154, 155. 
Alvarez, Manuel, 345 ; Jose, 375 ; 

Jose the younger, 375. 
Amadeo, 280, 281. 
Ambrogio, Giovanni di, 196 ; Lorenzo 

di Giovanni di, 196 ; da Milano, 

Ambroise, V. J. J., 362. 
Ammanati, Bartolommeo, 298. 
Andrea Pisano, 190, 191, 192, 195, 

257, 258, 259. 
Angelion, 67. 

Anguiers, Francois and Michel, 309. 
Anselmo (at Milan), 182. 
Antelami, Benedetto, 183 f. 

Antenor, 74, 78. 

Antico (Pier Jacopo Alari-Bonacolsi) , 

Antinous, 161. 

Antonine period, 161 f. 

Antonio, 195. 

Aphrodite (see Venus) , by Alcamenes, 
94, 136; of Cnidus, 114, 136; 
Medici, 115, 136; Capitoline, 115, 

Apollo, type of early Greek statues, 
60, 61 ; Choiseul-GoufBer, 79 ; of 
Belvedere, 129, 132, 291, 396. 

ApoUonius, 135. 

Aquila, Andrea d', 286. 

Ara Pacis, 151-153, 154, 155. 

Area, Nicol6 dell', 279. 

Arcesilas, 136. 

Archaic Greek sculpture, 59-76 ; at 
Athens, 71-76. 

Archermus, 63, 64. 

Arezzo, Niccol6 d', 280-282; Piero 
d', 282. 

Arfe, Juan de, 343. 

Argos, sculpture at, 67, 68, 77. 

Aria, Michele d', 304. 

Aristogeiton, statue of, with Har- 
modius, 77, 78, 80. 

Armstead, H. H., 380. 

Arnolfo di Cambio, 188, 189. 

Arras, Jean de, 212. 

Artaxerxes, 45. 

Asshurbanipal, 38, 39, 44. 

Asshurnazirpal, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37. 

Astyages, 43. 

Atche, Rafael, 376. 

Athanadorus, 134. 

Athena, Parthenos, 88, 89, 90, 91, 
101 ; Lemnian, 91 ; Nike, sculp- 
tures of temple, 102. 103 ; of balus- 
trade, 103, 104. 

Athenis, 63. 





Athens, archaic sciilpture, 71-76 ; 
chief centre of sculpture in fifth 
century, 77. 

Attic, sculpture, archaic, 71-76 ; in 
fifth century, 77, 78, 85-90, 94- 
105 ; in Asia Minor, 106, 121, 122, 
12.3; gravestones, 123, 124. 

Aube, J. P., 361. 

Aubeaulx, Pierre des, 304. 

Augur, Hezekiah, 389. 

Augustus, 149, 150, 151, 155. 

Auvergne, school of, 197, 198. 

Averlino, Antonio, 285. 

Babylon, sculpture at, 29, 30. 

Babylonia, 24-31. 

Bachelier, Nicholas, 306. 

Bachman, Max, 402. 

Bachot, J., 304. 

Backere, Jan de, 329. 

Backofen, Hans, 322. 

Bacon, John, 334. 

Baerse, Jacob de, 328. 

Baeza, Francisco de, 339. 

Baily, Edward H., 378. 

Bailly, Joseph A., 403. 

Balduccio, Giovanni di, 190, 193 f. 

Ball, Thomas, 390, 396, 400, 

Bambaja, 281. 

Bamboccio, Antonio di Domenico da, 

Bandel, Ernst von, 372. 
Bandinelli, Baocio, 296, 298. 
Banks, Thomas, 334. 
Baratta, F., 300 ; P., 300. 
Barba, Ramon, 375. 
Bari, Niecol6 da, 279. 
Bariloto, Pietro, 295. 
Barlach, Ernst, 375. 
Barnard, George Grey, 398. 
Barnhorn, Clement J., 404. 
Baroque, 298-300, 325, 326, 331, 344, 

345, 346. 
Barrau, Theophile, 362. 
Barrias, Louis Ernest, 359 f. 
Barron, Eduardo, 376. 
Bartholdi, F. A., 361. 
Bartholom^, P. A., 360, 361, 375. 
Bartholomew, Edward Sheffield, 391. 
Bartlett, Paul Wayland, 398. 
Eartolini, Lorenzo, 348. 
Bartolo di Michele, 258. 

Barye, Antoine Louis, 356, 362. 

Bassalettus, see Vasalletto. 

Bates, Harry, 381, 382. 

Bathycles, 67. 

Bayes, Gilbert, 386. 

Beaugrand, Guyot de, 329. 

Beauneveu, Andre, 212 ; Pierre, 212 

Becerra, Gaspar, 342. 

Begaretti, Antonio, 296. 

Begas, Reinhold, 372 f. 

Behnes, William, 379. 

Bellver, Francisco, Mariano, Jose 

and Ricardo, 375. 
Benedetto, Antelami, 183 f. ; di 

Majano, 271, 286; da Rovezzano 

295, 304, 333. 
Benlliure, Mariano, 376. 
Benti, Donato di Battista di Mateo 

Bergaz, Alfonso, 345. 
Berge, Edward, 401. 
Bernini, Gian Lorenzo, 299 f., 310 

311, 346, 373. 
Bernward, 177, 216. 
Berrugueti, Alonso, 340, 341, 342 

343 ; Inocencio, 342. 
Berthelot, Guillaume, 309. 
Betti, see Justi. 
Beuren, Alphonse van, 367. 
Biduino, 181. 

Bissell, George Edwin, 393. 
Bissen, H. W., 352. 
Bitter, Karl, 400, 401. 
Blaser, Gustav, 370. 
Blay, Miguel, 376. 
Blondel, Lancelot, 329. 
Blutenburg, sculptures at, 323. 
Bock, Richard, 404. 
Boehm, Sir J. E., 380. 
Boisseau, E. A., 361. 
Boizot, 315. 

Bologna, Giovanni, 258, 296 f., 325. 
Bonafe, Martin, 256. 
Bonannus, 177, 182. 
Bonassieux, Jean, 358. 
Bonino da Campione, 194. 
Bontemps, Pierre, 306 f., 309. 
Borglum, Solon H., 402. 
Borgoiia, Felipe de, 340, 341, 342. 
Borremans, Passchier, 329 ; Jan, 329, 
Bosio, Francois Joseph, 353. 
Bossard, Johannes, 375. 



Bouchardon, Edm6, 312. 

Boucher, Alfred, 362. 

Boulogne, see Bologna. 

Bouteiler, Jean le, 212. 

Boyle, John J., 399. 

Bracken, Mrs. Clio, 405 ; Julia, 405. 

Bracket, Edward A., 391. 

Braeck, Pierre, 367. 

Brahmanic art, 409, 410, 411. 

Branchidae, statues from, 62, 63 ; 

statue by Canachus at, 67, 68. 
Brasses, engraved, 225, 235, 332. 
Bregno, Andrea, 282, 286. 
Brenner, Victor D., 402. 
Brewster, George Thomas, 401. 
Briard, Pierre, 309. 
Bringhurst, Robert P., 404. 
Briosco, Antonio, 278, 281. 
Brock, Sir Thomas, 381, 382. 
Broeucq, Jacques du, 330. 
Bronze, composition, xxiv ; methods 

of casting, xxiv, xxv ; patina, xxvi ; 

early Egyptian statues, 9 ; Etrus- 
can work, 144-146 ; doors in Italy, 

176 f. ; work in Germany, 216 f. ; 

cire perdu process of casting in 

England, 384. 
Brooks, C'arol, 405 ; Richard E., 402. 
Brown, Henry Kirke, 390, 392; 

Mortimer, 387. 
Briiggemann, Hans, 324. 
Brun, S. J., 356. 
Brunelleschi, 258. 
Bryaxis, 120. 
Buddha, 137, 408, 409, 410, 413, 415, 

416, 417. 
Buddhistic art, 44, 407, 408, 409, 

410, 411, 412-417. 
Bull capitals, Persian, 47 ; bull and 

lion, 46. 
Buon, Bartolommeo, Giovanni, Paci- 

fico, and Pantaleone, 283. 
Buonamicus, 181. 
Buonarroti, see Michael Angelo. 
Bupalus, 63. 
Burgundy, school of, 197, 199, 200 f., 

244 ; at Dijon, 212, 21.3-215, 304 ; 

in Spain, 256. 
Burma, sculpture in, 411. 
Burroughs, Mrs. Edith Woodman, 

Bush-Brown, Henry Kirke, 402. 

Busti, Agostino, 281. 

Busts, Roman, 154, 157, 159, 164. 

Caffieri, J. J., 313, 314 ; Jacques, 314 

Philippe, 314. 
Caillouette, Louis Denis, 350. 
Cain, Auguste, 362. 
Calamis, 78, 79, 85, 93. 
Calcagni, Tiberio, 294. 
Calder, Alexander Milne, 403 ; A 

Stirling, 403, 406. 
Calegari, A., 300. 
Gallon, 67. 

Galverley, Charles, 401. 
Camaino, Tino di, 190. 
Cambodia, sculpture in, 411. 
Camelio, 285. 
Campagna, Girolamo, 298. 
Campbell, Thomas, 389. 
Campeny, Jose, 376. 
Canachus, 67, 68. 
Candid, Peter, 297, 325. 
Candido, Elia, 297. 
Cano, Alonso, 344. 
Canova, Antonio, 347 f., 348, 350 

368, 370, 372, 378, 389. 
Caradosso, 281. 

Carbonell, Spanish sculptor, 376. 
Cariat, 43. 
Carles, A. J,, 362. 
Carraona, Salvador, 345. 
Garolingian renaissance, 174, 175, 197 
Carpeaux, Jean Baptiste, 356 f,, 362 

382, 394. 
Carrier-Belleuse, 358, 362. 
Cartellier, Pierre, 353. 
Castalys, Jayme, 251. 
Castro, Philip de, 345. 
Catell, Arnall, 241. 
Cathier, 365. 
Cattanes, Danese, 298. 
Cavelier, Pierre Jules, 358. 
Gazin, Marie, 361. 
Cazzaniga, Tommaso, 281. 
Cellini, Benvenuto, 296, 305. 
Cerrachi, Giuseppe, 388. 
Ceylon, art in, 411. • 
Ghaleveau, G., 303. 
Chandler, Clyde Giltner, 406. 
Chantry, Sir F. L., 378, 379. 
Charioteer at Delphi, 79, 80. 
Chartres, Jean de, 303, 



Chatrousse, E., 361. 

Chaudet, Antoine Denis, 353. 

Chelles, Jean de, 212 ; Pierre de, 212. 

Chephren (Khafra), 7, 8. 

Chian sculpture, 63, 64, 73, 74, 75. 

Chinard, Joseph, 353. 

Chinese sculpture, 137, 411-415. 

Chirisophus, 67. 

Chirriguera, 345. 

Ciccione, Andrea, 286. 

Cinerary statues, urns, groups, 141 f. 

Cione, Andrea di, 191 f. 

Civitale, Matteo, 271. 

Claperos, Anton, 251, 253. 

Claude, Louis Michel (Clodion), 314, 

Clay, sculpture in, rx. 
Clgsinger, J. B. A., 361. 
Clevenger, Shobal Vail, 391. 
Clodion, 314. 

Cluny, abbey of, 198, 200, 229. 
Coecke, Peter, 331. 
Cohen, Katherine, 405. 
Cohn (Colyns), Alexander, 325, 331. 
Collet, Jacques, 212. 
Colombe, Michel, 302, ,303, 305. 
Colonia, Juan de, 250. 
Colotes, 93. 
Colton, W. R., 386. 
Connelly, Pierce Francis, 394. 
Conner, Jerome, 402. 
Constantine, arch of, 164. 
Conventions, of Egyptian art, 13 ; 

of Greek art, 97, 100. 
Copies of Greek statues, 85, 86, 88, 

92, 93, 150. 
Copin, Dutch sculptor in Spain, 335, 

Cordonnier, A. A., 362. 
Corradini, 300. 
Corral, Felipe del, 345. 
Cortot, Jean Pierre, 354. 
Cosmati, 180 f., 189, 285. 
CouUant-Valera, Lorenzo, 376. 
Couper, William, 400. 
Couston, Guillaume and Nicholas, 

312, 350. 
Cox, Charles Brinton, 403. 
Coysevox, Antoine, 310, 311, 312. 
Cozzarelli, Giacomo, 277. 
Crank, G. A. D., 361. 
Crawford, Thomas, 389. 

Cresilas, 93, 94. 
Critius, 78, 85, 86, 89, 113. 
Crunelle, Leonard, 404. 
Cummings, Melvin Earl, 405. 
Cunningham, Allan, 379. 
Cypriote sculpture, 49-52. 
Cyrus, 30, 43, 44. 

Daedalus, 67. 

Dajou, Nicholas, 350. 

Dallin, Cyrus E., 402, 403. 

Dalmata, Giovanni, 285. 

Dalou, Jules, 358 f., 382, 386. 

Dammartin, Andr6 and Gui, 212. 

Damophilus, 148. 

Damophon, 133. 

Dampt, J. A., 362. 

Dancart, Fleming in Spain, 335. 

Dannecker, J. H., 368. 

Danti, Vincenzo, 289, 298. 

Darius, 44, 45. 

Darius Codomannus, 43. 

Daudu, 26. 

Dauer (Daucher), Adolf and Hans, 

David, Pierre Jean (d'Angers), 355 f., 

Definitions, sculpture, xix ; relief, sis ; 

decorative, xs ; substantive, xx. 
Delaplanche, Eugfene, 361. 
Delcour, Jean, 332. 
Delia Robbia, see Robbia. 
Demosthenes, statue, 127. 
Dentone, Antonio, 285. 
Desenfans, 367. 

Desiderio da Settignano, 270, 271. 
Dexter, Henry, 391. 
Diana of Versailles, 129. 
Diaz, Angelo, 376. 
Diego de la Cruz, 337. 
Diez, Robert, 374. 
Dijon, sculpture at, 212, 213-215. 
Dillens, Julien, 365, 367. 
Dipoenus, 67. 
Dittler, Emil, 375. 
Dixey, John, 388. 
Domenico del Barbiere (Domenique 

Florentin), 305. 
Domitian, 156. 
Donatello, 258, 260, 262-266, 268, 

270, 271, 273, 275, 277, 278, 282, 

285, 286, 289, 291, 296, 365. 



Donner, Georg Raphael, 326. 

Donoghue, John, 401. 

Doiitas, 67. 

Doric sculpture, 63, 60, 07, 68. 

Doryclidas, 67. 

Doulls, Pierre, 304. 

Doyle, Alexander, 401. 

Drake, Friedrioh, 370. 

Drury, Alfred, 385, 386. 

Dubois, Paul, 357 ; Mrs., 39^. 

Ducaju, J. J., 364. 

Dumont, A. A., 356 ; E., 315. 

Dungi, 29. 

Dupon, Josue, 367. 

Duprfe, Giovanni, 349. 

Duque, P., 345. 

Duquesnoy, F., 300, 331 ; J., 331. 

Dilrer, Albrecht, 317, 322. 

Duret, Francisque Joseph, 356. 

Durham, Joseph, 379. 

Dying Gaul, 130, 131, 133. 

Eannatuni, 25. 

Eberhard, Konrad, 372. 

Eberle, Abastenia St. Leger, 405. 

Echeandia, Julio, 376. 

Egas (Van Eyck), 2.56, 335. 

Egypt, 1-23 ; chronology of, 2 ; con- 
ventions of art in, 13. 

Ehrenfried, Theophilus, 324. 

Elamite kingdom, 44. 

Elgin marbles, 95. 

Elias, Spanish sculptor, 375. 

Elkan, Benno, 375. 

EUioott, Henry Jackson, 403. 

Elwell, Frank Edwin, 400. 

Embil, Miguel, 376. 

Empire in Egypt, 17-21. 

Engelmann, Richard, 375. 

Ephesus, early temple, 65 ; later 
temple, 122. 

Epigonus, 130. 

Erechtheum, sculptures of, 102, 104, 

Eshin Sozu, 417. 

Estany y Capella, Pedro, 376. 

Etex, Antoine, 356. 

Euphranor, 120. 

Euthydicus, 75. 

Ezekiel, Moses Jacob, 392. 

Fagel, L^on, 362. 

Falconet, M. E., 313. 

Falgui^re, J. A. J., 358. 

Families of artists in mediaeval 

Rome, 180 f. 
Fanoelli, Domcnico di Sandi'o, 339, 

Fay d'herbe, L., 332. 
Federighi, Antonio, 276, 277. 
Fehr, Henry C., .386. 
Ferrata, E., 300. 
Ferrucci, Andrea, 295. 
Fiesole, Girolamo da, 303. 
Figueres, Juan, 375. 
Filarete, 285. 
Fiorentino, Niccolo, 278. 
Fisher, Frank, 387. 
Flanagan, John, 402. 
Flavian sculpture, 156 f. 
Flaxman, John, 378, 382. 
Floris, 330. 

Flotner (Flettner), Peter, 320. 
Fogelberg, Swedish sculptor, 352. 
Foggini, G. B., 300. 
Foley, John Henry, 380 ; Margaret, 

Folgueras, Cipriano, 376. 
Foppa, Cristoforo, 281. 
Ford, Edward Onslow, 383. 
Forment, Damian, 255, 343. 
Foyatier, 357. 
Fraikin, C. A., 364. 
Frampton, Sir G. J., 384 f. , 
Francanilla, Pietro, 297. 
Francesco di Giorgio, 277. 
Frankenstein, John, 404. 
Fraser, James E., 401, 402. 
Frederick II, 179. 
FrSmiet, Emmanuel, 356, 357. 
French, Daniel Chester, 396-398. 
Frith, W. S., 382, 385. 
Frontality, 10, 164, 415. 
Fusina, Andrea, 281. 
Fuxa y Leal, 376. 

Gagini, Domenico, 286 f. ; Antonio, 

Gailde, J., 304. 

GambarelU, Matteo, 270. 

Gandaris, Jose de, 376. 

Gandhara, Hellenistic-Indian sculp- 
ture, 409, 411, 413, 415. 

Gardet, Georges, 362. 



Gaul, August, 374. 

Gauquife, H. D., .362. 

Gautherin, Jean, .361. 

Gechter, Theodore, 3.56. 

Geefs, Guillaume, .Jcseph, etc., 364. 

Gensburg, Russian sculptor, 377. 

Gentil, Franfoi.5, 306. 

Geremia, Cristoforo, 278. 

Gerhaert, Glaus, 323. 

Gerhard, Hubert, 325. 

Gerlach, Gustave, 402. 

Gerome, J. L., 361. 

Geyger, E. M., 374. 

Ghiberti, Lorenzo, 258-262, 266, 268, 
271, 3.39, 389; Vittorio, 191. 

Ghini, Simone, 285. 

Gibbons, Grinling, 334. 

Gibson, John, 379, .391. 

Gilabertus, 199. 

Gilbert, Alfred, 380, 382, 384. 

Gil de SHoe, 337. 

Gines, Jose, 376. 

Giotto, 191, 192, 254. 

Giovanni di Martino, 282 ; Pisano, 
185, 186, 187 t., 189, 191, 192. 

Giralte, Francisco, 342. 

Girardon, Francois, 310 f., 313. 

Gitiadas, 67. 

Giusto, Giovanni and Antonio, 304 f . 

Gjol Baschi, 105, 106. 

Glazed tile.s, Persian, 45, 46. 

Glycon, 136. 

Gobbo, il, 281. 

Godecharle, L., 332. 

Gomar, Anton and Francesch, 256. 

Gorgasus, 148. 

Goro di Gregorio, 190. 

Goroyema, Ono, 417. 

Gosen, Theodor von, 375. 

Gothic sculpture, 174, 175, 184-196 ; 
in France, 203-215 ; subjects of, 
203-207 ; relation to architecture, 
207 f. ; quantity, 208 f. ; methods, 
209 f. ; schools, 210 ; in thirteenth 
century, 210 t. ; in fourteenth cen- 
tury, 211-214; in Germany, 221- 
226; in England, 229-239; in 
Spain, 246, 248-256; in Nether- 
lands, 327. 

Goujon, Jean, 307 f., 309, 330. 

Gould, Thomas K., 392; Thomas, 

Grado, Gian Francecso da, 295. 

Graeco-Roman sculpture, 135-137. 

Gragera, Jose, 376. 

Grafly, Charles, 403. 

Grasser, Erasmus, 323. 

Gratchoff, Russian sculptor, 377. 

Greenough, Horatio, 389 ; R. .S., 392. 

Groot, Guillaume de, 365. 

Gruamons, 181. 

Guas, Juan, 337. 

Gudea, ruler of Lagash, 28, 29, 30, 32, 

Guerin, Gilles, 309. 
Guglielmo, of Modena, 182, 183 ; of 

Verona, 182, 183 ; Fra, 188 f. 
Guido of Como, 184. 
Guillain, Simon, 309. 
Guillaume, J. B. C. E., 356. 
Guillen, sculptor at Burgos, 337 ; 

Francisco, .339. 
Gutierrez, Francisco, 345. 
Gyoji Bosatsu, 416. 

Habich, Ludwig, 375. 

Hadrian, 150, 160, 161. 

Hageladas, 67, 85. 

Hahn, Hermann, 373, 375. 

Hahnel, Ernst, 371. 

Haller, Hermann, 375. 

Hampton, G. Herbert, 386. 

Hans, Bavarian sculptor, 323. 

Harmodius and Aristogeiton, 77, 78, 

80, 89, 113. 
Harnisch, Albert E., 403. 
Harpy tomb, 65. 
Hart, Joel T., 391. 
Hartley, Jonathan Scott, 394. 
Harvey, Eli, 402. 
Haseltine, Henry J., 392, 403. 
Haslin, N., 304. 
Hellenes, enter Greece, 53. 
Henry VII, chapel in Westminster 

Abbey, 332 f. . 
Hera, of Polyclitus, 91, 93; of 

Samos, 61, 63. 
Hernandez, Gregorio, 343. 
Hibbard, Frederick C., 404. 
Hildebrand, Adolf, 374. 
Hinestrosa, Juan de, 345. 
Hittites, 41-43. 
HoefHer, Josef, 375. 
Hoernlein, Fritz, 375. 



Hoetger, Bernhard, 373, 375. 
Hosmer, Harriet, 391. 
Houdon, J. A., 314, 388. 
Hudler, August, 375. 
Huerta, Juan de la, 214, 253. 
Hughes, Ball, 390. 
Hyatt, Anna Vaughn, 405. 

lie de France, mediaeval school of 

sculpture, 197, 203. 
Indaco, Francesco and Jacopo, 339. 
Indian sculpture, 407-412. 
Injalbert, J. A., 362. 
' Ionic sculpture, 63, 65, 67, 68, 77, 84. 
Isocephalism, 97. 
Ives, Chauncey B., 392. 
Ivory, in Byzantine art, 168, 170, 171, 

182, 198 ; in Italy, 175 f. ; in 

France, 197, 200 ; in Germany, 


Jackson, John Adams, 391. 

Jacopo della Querela, see Querela. 

Jacquot, Georges, 356. 

Japanese sculpture, 137, 415-418. 

Java, art in, 411. 

Jerichau, J. A., 352. 

Jitsiigen, 417. 

J6ch6, 417. 

John, W. Goscombe, 386. 

Jones, Adrian, 385 ; Inigo, 333 ; 

John E., 379. 
Jouffroy, Francois, 356, 394. 
Julien, Pierre, 315. 
Juni, Juan de, 343. 
Juste, Jean, Antoine and Juste, 304 f. 

Kaldenberg, Frederick Robert, 401. 

Kamensky, Feodor, 377. 

Katakin, 417. 

Kelly, James E., 401. 

Kels, Hans, 322. 

Kemeys, Edward, 402. 

Keyser, Ephraim, 403. 

Kinai, 418. 

King, John, 391. 

Kirk, Thomas, 379. 

Kiss, August, 370, 403. 

Kitson, Henry Hudson, 402 ; Samuel, 

402 ; Mrs. H. H., 405. 
Kiushu, 418. 
Klinger, Max, 374. 

Koben, 417. 
Kolbe, Georg, 375. 
Konti, Isidore, 400, 401. 
Korea, sculpture in, 415. 
K6sho, 417. 

Kraft, Adam, 316, 317 f. 
Krug, Ludwig, 322. 
Kwakei, 417. 

Laboureur, F. M., 348. 

Ladd, Mrs. Anna Coleman, 405. 

Laessle, Albert, 405. 

Lagae, Jules, 367. 

Laiti6, Frenr-h sculptor, .356. 

Lalaing, Jacques de, 366 f. 

Lambeaux, Jef, 366. 

Lamberti, Nicola di Piero, 196. 

Lancere, Russian sculptor, 376. 

Lanfrani, Jacopo, 195. 

Lang, Hermann, 375. 

Langer, Richard, 375. 

Languedoc, school of, 197, 199 f. 

Lantfoi, Edouard, 380, 382, 386. 

Laocoon, 134, 135, 292. 

Larche, F. R., 362. 

Launoy, Robert de, 212 ; Jean de, 

Laurana, 278, 286, 287, 302. 
Laurentius, 18. 
Lawson, G. A., 381. 
Lederer, Hugo, 374, 
Lehmbruck, W., 375. 
Leighton, Lord Frederick, 383, 384. 
Lemaire, Philippe Henri, 356. 
Lemoyne, J. B., 313, 314. 
Leochares, 120, 129. 
Leonardo di Ser Giovanni, 195, 268. 
Leoni, Leone and Pompeo, 343. 
Leopardi, Alessandro, 275, 284 f. 
Lerch, Nicholas, 323. 
Lessing, 368. 
Lewis, Edmonia, 392. 
Lieberieh, Russian sculptor, 376. 
Li^ge, Jean de, 212. 
Linder, Henry, 401. 
Lion, in Assyrian art, 34, 37, 38 ; 

lion and bull, Persian, 46. 
Llimona y Brugera, 376. 
Loisel, Robert, 212. 
Lombardi, Pietro and his sons, 284, 

285 ; Alfonso, 296. 
Lomme, Janin, 252, 253, 255, 327. 



Longepied, L. E., 362. 

Longman, Evelyn B., 405. 

Longuer, Michael, 256. 

Lopez, Charles A., 402. 

Lorenzetto, 295. 

Lorenzo di Mariano, 277. 

Lorrain, Robert le, 310, 311, 313. 

Lucchesi, Andrea Carlo, 3,s3. 

Luetkens, Hans, 375. 

Lukeman, Henry Augustu.-i, 401. 

Lycia, Greek sculpture in, 65, 106. 

Lycians, 43. 

Lycius, 93. 

Lydians, 43. 

Lysippus, 109, 116-119, 128, 137, 149 

Italian medal-maker, 278. 
Lysistratus, 1 19. 

Maccagnani, Eugenio, 350. 
Maedonell, Patrick, 379. 
MacGillivray, James Pittendrigh 

Maokennal, Bertram, 386. 
MacMonnies, Frederick William, 398 
MacNeill, Hermon Atkins, 401 ; Mrs, 

Harmon A., 405. 
Maderna, S., 300. 
Magni, Pietro, 349. 
Maitani, Lorenzo, 192. 
Majano, Benedetto da, 271, 286 

Giuliano da, 286. 
Malines, Jean de, 335. 
Manship, Paul, 405. 
Mantegazza, Antonio and Cristo- 

foro, 280, 281. 
Marchand, Francois, 305. 
Marcus .\urelius, 161, 162. 
Marinas, Aniceto, 376. 
Marochetti, Charles, 356. 
Marqueste, L. H., 362. 
Marrina, il., 277. 
Marshall, W. Calder, 380. 
Martin, .Spanish sculptor, 375. 
Martinez, E. R., 376. 
Martiny, Phihp, 400, 401. 
Marville, Jean de, 212, 213, 214. 
Massegne, Jacobello and Pier Paolo 

delle, 195. 
Matheus, at Santiago de Compostela, 

Matzen, Herman N,, 404. 
Mausoleum, 109, 120-122, 126. 

Mazzoni, Guido, 278-280, 286, 302, 

McClure, J. C, 387. 
McGill, David, 386. 
Mead, Larkin Goldsmith, 393. 
Mears, Helen, 405. 
Medes, 44. 

Medina, Sabino de, 376. 
Medon, 67. 
Meit, Conrad, 322, 
Mejnon, L6on, 367. 
Mena, Pedro de, 344. 
Menelaus, 136. 
Mercadente, Laurent, 256. 
Mercie, M. J. A., 360, 399. 
Messersehmidt, F. X., 326. 
Metzner, Franz, 375. 
Meunier, Constantin, 365 f., 374. 
Miefeael Angelo, 258, 276, 288, 289- 

295, 296, 298, 310, 311, 340, 341, 

342, 346, 372, 373, 379. 
Michel, G. F., 362. 
Michelezzo, 263, 269 f., 280, 282, 286. 
Michiel, Jean, 215. 
Middle Kingdom, Egypt, 14-17. 
Mikkiades, 63, 64, 
Millan, Pedro, 337, 
Millet, Aime, 358. 
Mills, Clark, 390. 
Milmore, Martin, 393, 397. 
Minelli, Giovanni, 278 ; ,A.ntonio, 

Mino da Fiesole, 271, 272, 285. 
Minoan art, 54-58. 
Miwa, 418. 
Moderno, 278. 

Moitte, Jean Guillaume, 353. 
Moiturier, Antoine le, 214, 
Mone, Jehan, 330. 
Monserrat, Jose, 376. 
Montanes, Juan Martinez, 343, 344. 
Montelupo, Raffaello da, 296, 
Montford, Paul R,, 387. 
Mora, Jose de, 344. 
Moreau, Mathurin, 361. 
Morel, Jacques, 215. 
Moreto, Giovanni, 339. 
Morey, Pere, 251 ; Guillem, 251. 
Mosselmans, Jean, 253. 
Mota, Guillem de la, 254. 
Moynihan, Frederick, 401. 
Mozier, Joseph, 391. 



Mudejar art in Spain, 246, 249, 252, 

255, 335, 337. 
Mugiano, Lorenzo di, 304. 
Mulligan, Charles J., 404. 
Multscher, Hans, 321. 
Murray, Samuel, 403. 
Mussulman art in Spain, 240, 241. 
Mycenaean art, 54-58. 
Mycerinus, 8, 9. 
Myron, .67, 85-88, 93, 94. 

Nabft-aplu-iddin, 30. 

Naldini, P., 300; Lorenzo, 305. 

Nanni di Banco, 196, 268 f. 

Naps, Russian sculptor, 377. 

Naram-Sin, stele of, 27. 

Naturalism, see Realism. 

Navarro, Miguel, 255. 

Nebuchadnezzar, 30. 

Neo-Attic reliefs, 137. 

Nereid monument, 105, 106. 

Nesiotes, 78, 85, 86, 89, 113. 

Nevln, Blanche, 392. 

Ney, Elisabet, 394. 

Nicandra, 61, 63. 

Nicholaus, 183. 

Nicola (Nicold) Pisano, 184-187, 188, 

189, 257 ; di Piero Lamberti, 196 ; 

deir Area, 279; d' Arezzo, 280, 

Niooluso di Francesco, 339. 
Niconaus de Angelo, 180. 
Niehaus, Charles H., 399. 
Nike of Paeonius, 84, 128 ; of Samo- 

thraoe, 127, 128. 
Nino Pisano, 192, 193. 
Niobe group, 128. 
Nole, Jan and Robert de, 331. 
Nollekens, J., 334. 
Normandy, school of, 197, 202. 
Nouriche, Guillaume de, 212. 

Obiols, Gustavo, 376. 

O'Connor, Andrew, 401. 

O'Donovan, William R., 401. 

Old Kingdom, Egypt, 5 ; reliefs of, 
10, 11, 12. 

Oiler, Pere, 254. 

Olympia, sculptures of temple of 
Zeus, 77, 81-84, 113; Nike of 
Paeonius, 84, 128 ; Zeus by Phid- 
ias, 88, 89, 90, 91. 

Oms, Manuel, 376. 

Onatas, 68. 

Orcagna, 191 f., 2.57, 269. 

Ordonez, Bartolomc, 340. 

Osle, Luciano and Miguel, 376. 

Pacher, Michael, 323 f. 

Paeonius, 83, 84, 93, 94, 128. 

Pages y Serratora, F., 376. 

Pagnucci, Jose, 376. 

Pajou, Augustin, 314, 350. 

Palmer, Erastus Dow, 390, 393, 394. 

Pampaloni, Luigi, 349. 

Parthenon, sculptures of , 94-102, 107, 

Partridge, William Ordway, 400. 

Pasiteles, 136, 137, 150, 154. 

Patigian, Haig, 405. 

Paulus, mediaeval sculptor, 181. 

Pegram, Henry A., 385. 

Pergamon, Pergamene art, 130-133. 

Periods, in Egypt, 2 ; of Greek art, 
58 ; of Byzantine art, 168 f . ; of 
mediaeval art, 174 f. ; of Gothic 
sculpture in England, 229 ; of 
Italian Renaissance, 257 f . ; of 
Indian sculpture, 407 f . ; of Chinese 
sculpture, 412 S. ; of Japanese 
sculpture, 415 ff. 

Perraud, Jean Joseph, 356. 

Perry, Roland Hinton, 401. 

Persian sculpture, 43—47 ; after 
Alexander, 407. 

Perut, Jacques, 249 f. 

Pesquera, Diego de, 344. 

Peter, Victor, 361. 

Peterich, Paul, 375. 

Peynot, E. E., 362. 

Peyrera, Manuel, 343. 

Phidias, 67, 83, 84, 85, 88-91, 93, 94, 

Phigaleia, sculptures from, 105, 121, 

Phoenicians, 47-^9, 58. 

Phrygians, 43. 

Picard, Laurent, 253. 

Picturesque reliefs, 133, 154, 328. 

Pietro da Milano, 302. 

Pigalle, J. B., 313, 314. 

Pilon, Germain, 308 f. 

Piquer, Jose, 375. 



Pisa, Giovanni da, 277 ; Isaia da, 
285, 286, 295. * 

Pisanello, 278. 

Pisano, Nicola, 184-187, 188, 189, 
257; Giovanni, 185, 186, 187 f., 
189, 191, 192; Andrea, 190, 191, 
192, 195, 257 ; Nino, 192, 193. 

Pisiatratus, 73, 74. 

Pitts, William, 379. 

Poggibonsi, Giuliano da, 339. 

Polasek, Albin, 405. 

Pollaiuolo, Antonio del, 273. 

Polyclitus, 67, 85, 91-93, 94, 135, 136. 

Polydorus, 134. 

Polyeuctus, 127. 

Pomeroy, F. W., 386. 

Ponzano, Ponciano, 375. 

Porta, Fra Giovanni Angiolo della, 
296; Guglielmo della, 296; An- 
tonio, 304. 

Portraits, Egyptian, 5, 6, 7, 16, 18, 
19, 21, 22; Roman, 149, 154, 155, 
157, 159, 161, 162, 164, 165; in the 
fourteenth century, 212, 213 ; in 
Germany, 221. 

Portuguese sculpture, 337 f. 

Posene, Russian sculptor, 377. 

Potter, Edward C., 402; Louis, 402. 

Powers, Hiram, 389, 392; Preston 
and Longworth, .392, 396. 

Pradas, Juan Garcia de, 339. 

Pradier, James, 354, 356. 

Pratt, Bela L., 402. 

Praxias, 93. 

Praxiteles, 109, 111-117, 119, 120, 
123, 128, 129, 133. 

Preault, A. A., 358. 

PreheUenic art, 53-58. 

Prieur, Barthelemy, 309. 

Primaticcio (Le Primatice), 305, 307, 

Prindale, Hennequin, 212. 

Priv6, Thomas, 212. 

Proctor, Phimister, 402. 

Provence, school of, 197, 202 f. 

Pueoh, Denys, 360 f. 

Puget, Pierre, 310, 311 f. 

Pujol, A., 345. 

Pyrgoteles, 285. 

Queirolo, 300. 

Quellin, Artus, 331, 332. 

Querela, Jacopo della, 275, 277, 279, 

Querol, Agustin, 376. 
Quesnel, Nicholas, 304. 

Raggi, A., 300. 

Ranucius, 181. 

Ranch, C. D., 370. 

Ravy, Jean, 212. 

Raymond du Temple, 212. 

Realism, 119, 212, 213, 215, 221, 223, 
224, 226, 301, .349 f., 355, 356, 365 f ., 
.373 f., 375 f., 417 f. 

Ream, Vinnie, 392. 

Rebisso, Louis T., 404. 

Rebours, Denis le, 304. 

Regnault, G., 303. 

Reliefs, definition, xix ; early Egyp- 
tian, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12; of Middle 
Kingdom, 16 ; of Empire, 20 ; 
early Babylonian, 24, 25 ; late 
Babylonian, 30; Assyrian, 31, 32- 
39 ; Persian, 44-46 ; archaic Greek, 
64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 71, 72 ; various 
Greek, 106 f. ; on gravestones, 124 ; 
picturesque, 133, 154, 328; Neo- 
Attic, 137, 154 ; from altar of Nep- 
tune, 150 f. ; from ara Pads, 151- 
153, 154 ; of arch of Titus, 156 f. ; 
of Trajan, 157—159 ; in contin- 
uous style, 158, 159, 160, 163; 
Byzantine, 170-172 ; in England, 
230, 236, 237 ff. 

Religion and art in Egypt, 4. 

Renaudin, 305. 

Reynes, Jose, 376. 

Reynolds-Stevens, W., 385. 

Rhind, J. Massey, 400, 401 ; William 
Birnie, 386. 

Rhodes, 125, 134, 135. 

Rhoecus, 63. 

Ricci, Stefano, 348. 

Riccio, 278. 

Richier, Ligier, 305 f. 

Riedisser, Wilhelm, 375. 

Riemenschneider, Tilman, 320 f . 

Rietschel, E. F. A., 370 f. 

Rimmer, William, 392. 

Rinehart, William Henry, 391. 

Ritlius, 198. 

Riviere, L. A. T., 362. 

Rizzo, Antonio, 283 f. 



Roberts, Howard, 393, 394. 

Robbia, della, Luca, 191, 258, 266- 

268 ; Andrea, 268 ; Giovanni, 268, 

289; Fra Mattia, 268; Fra Am- 

brogio, 268 ; Luca di Andrea, 268 ; 

Girolamo, 268, 305 ; scliool of, 268, 

273, 339. 
Rococo, 300, 326, 346, 364, 365, 368, 

Rodin, Auguste, 362-364, 374, 375, 

Rodriguez, Andres, 376 ; Juan, 340. 
Roger-Bloch, 362. 

Rogers, Randolph, 391 ; John, 392. 
Roland, sculptor in the eighteenth 

century, 315; Philippe Laurent, 

Roldan, Pedro and Luisa, 344. 
Roman sculpture, 137, 148-165. 
Romanesque sculpture, 174-183, 197- 

203, 216-221, 227-229, 241-247, 

250, 327. 
Romano, Gian Cristoforo, 281, 286, 

295 ; Paolo, 285, 286. 
Romantic School, 348, 354 ff., 370- 

373, 380 f. 
Ron brothers, Spanish sculptors, 345. 
Rossellino, Antonio, 270, 271, 286; 

Bernardo, 270, 271. 
Rossi, M., 300. 
Roth, Frederick G., 402. 
RoubiUac, 334. 
Roudebush, John H., 402. 
Roux, Richard le, 304 ; Roulland le, 

Rovezzano, Benedetto da, 295, 304. 
Rubens, 332. 
Ruckstuhl, F. W., 400. 
Rudder, Isidore de, 367. 
Rude, Francois, 354 f., 356. 
RudolBno, 181. 
Ruggles, Theo, 405. 
Rupy, Jean de, 212. 
Rush, William, 388. 
Russia, modern sculpture in, 376 f . 
Rustici, Giovanni Francesco, 295. 
Rysbrack, J. M., 334. 

Sagrera, Francesch, Guillem, Jaime, 

Juan, and Miquel, 253. 
St. Gaudens, Augustus, 394-396, 398, 

401 ; Louis, 401. 

Saint-Marceau, C. R. de, 361. 
St. Romain, Jean de, 212. 
Saintonge and Poitou, school of, 197, 

Saite period, 22. 
Salvador, A., 345. 
Saly, Jacques, 350. 
Sammartiuo, 300. 
Sammuramat (Semiramis), 35. 
Samonoff, Russian sculptor, 376. 
Samso, Juan, 376. 
Samuel, Charles, 367. 
Sanctis, Andriolo de, 195. 
Sangallo, Francesco di, 295. 
Sanmarti, Medardo, 375. 
Sansovino, Andrea, 288 f ., 296, 330 ; 

Jacopo, 296, 298. 
Santiago de Compostela, 199, 229, 

Sarcophagi, of Mourners, 123 ; of 

Alexander, 125 f. ; from Sidamara, 

137 f., 167; Etruscan, 141-144; 

Roman, 160, 163, 165; Christian, 

163, 164, 165. 
Sardanapalus, see Asshurbanipal. 
Sargon, 27, 36, 37. 
Sarrazin, Jacques, 309. 
Sassanide kings, 44. 
Sassetta, Giovanni di Stefano, 276. 
Saxon sculpture of thirteenth cen- 
tury, 218. 
Scaligers, tombs of, 194. 
Schadow, J. G., 369 ; Rudolf, 369. 
Scheemakers, P., 334. 
Scheffauer, P. J., 368. 
Schelde, Paul van der, 331. 
Schenck, F. E., 386. 
Schievelbein, F. H., 370. 
Schilling, Johannes, 371 f., 381. 
Schliiter, Andreas, 325. 
Schongauer, Martin, 322. 
Schools of early mediaeval sculpture 

in France, 197 ff. 
Schwanthaler, Ludwig, 372. 
Schwarz, Hans, 322 ; Rudolph, 401. 
Schwegerle, Hans, 375. 
Scopas, 109-111, 113, 118, 119, 120, 

122, 123. 
Scudder, Janet, 405. 
Scyllis, 67. 

Sehnus, metopes from, 66, 67, 80. 
Sennacherib, 37. 



Septimius Severus, 162, 163. 

Sergell, J. T., 352. 

Serpotta, G., 300. 

Seurre, Bernard Gabriel, 356. 

Shalmaneser, 35. 

Shamshi-Adad, 35. 

Sheik el Beled, 5, 7, 59. 

Shrady, Henry M., 402. 

Siam, sculpture in, 411. 

Sicard, F. L., 362. 

Sicyon, sculpture at, 67, 68. 

Siloe, Gil de, 337. 

.Simart, P. C., 361. 

Simmons, Amory C, 402 ; Franklin, 

Simonds, George, 381. 

Simonis, L. E., 364. 

Skodik, Antonin, 402. 

Slodtz, Michel, 313, 314 ; Sebastian, 

Sluter, Glaus, 212, 213, 214, 2.53, 327. 

Smilis, 67. 

Solari, Cristoforo, 281 ; Pietro, An- 
tonio, and Tullio, 284 ; Tommaso, 

Somaini, Francesco, 349. 

Sonnecte, Georges de la, 215. 

Soulas, Jean, 305. 

Sperandio, 278. 

St., see under Saint. 

Stackpole, Ralph W., 405. 

Stappen, Charles van der, 365, 367. 

Stebbins, Emma, 392. 

Stephanus, 136. 

Stevens, Alfred George, 379. 

Stone, different kinds, xxi ; methods 
of work in, xxii-xxiv. 

Stone, Nicholas, .333, 334. 

Story, William Wetmore, 380, 392; 
T. Waldo, 392. 

Stoss, Veit, 2,54, 317. 

Strazza, Giovanni, 349. 

Strongylion, 93. 

Stuck, Franz, 375. 

Styppax, 93. 

Susillo, Spanish sculptor, 376. 

Swan, John Macallan, 383. 

Syrlin, Jorg, 321. 

Tacea, Pietro, 297. 
Taccone, Paolo, 285. 
Tadotoshi, 418. 

Taft, Lorado, 404. 

Talavera, Juan de, 339. 

Talpa, 278. 

Tankei, 417. 

Tantardini, Antonio, 349. 

Taschner, Ignatius, 375. 

Tatti, Jacopo, 296, 298. 

Taubman, Frank Mowbray, 386. 

Tauriscus, 135. 

Tefft, Carl E., 402. 

Tenerani, Pietro, 348. 

Terra-cotta, xx ; statues in Etruria, 

Texier, Jean, 305. 
Theed, William, 379. 
Theocles, 67. 
Theodoric, German sculptor in Spain, 

Theodorus of Samos, 63. 
Theroulde, Jean, 304. 
Theseum, sculptures of, 102. 
Thibet, sculpture in, 415. 
Thomas, E. E., 361 ; G. J., 361 ; 

Frederick, 387 ; J. Havard, 383. 
Thompson, Launt, 393. 
Thornycroft, W. Hamo, 381 f. 
Thorvaldsen, Bertel, 68, 348, 350 f., 

351, 352, .370, 372, 379, 389. 
Thrasher, Harry D., 405. 
Thrasymedes, 120. 
Tieck, C. F., 370. 
Tiglathpileser, 32. 
Tilden, Douglas, 404 f. 
Timotheus, 120. 
Titus, arch of, 156, 157, 159. 
Toft, Albert, 386. 
Tomagnino, 304. 
Tomoyoshi, 418. 
Tordesillas, Caspar de, 342. 
Torrey, Fred, 405. 
Torrigiano, Pietro, 295, 333, 339. 
Toulouse, sculpture of, 199, 218, 229, 

Tours, school of, 302, 303, 304. 
Trajan, 157, 158, 159, 160. 
Tribolo (Niccol6 Pericolo), 296. 
Triebel, Frederick E., 401. 
Trilles, Miguel Angel, 376. 
Trippel, Alexander, 368. 
Troubetskoy, Paul, 377. 
Tuaillon, Louis, 373, 374. 
TudesiUa, 342. 



Turino di Sano, 276 ; Giovanni di 

Turino, 276. 
Turner, Alfred, 387. 
Types, of Egyptian royal portraits, 

7, 8 ; of early Greek statues, 59- 


Ulacrino, 278. 
Uukei, 417. 
Uphues, 373. 
Ur, sculpture at, 29. 
Ur-Engur, 29. 
Ur-Nina, 25, 26. 

Valenciennes, Johan of, 253. 
Valentine, Edward V., 403. 
Vallfogona, Pere Juan de, 253, 254, 

Vallmitjana, Agapito and Venancio, 

Vancell, Jean, 376. 
Van Rasbourg, 362. 
Vassalletto, 180. 
Vasse, 315. 

Vecchietta, Lorenzo, 276, 277. 
Vela, Vincenzo, 349. 
Venus (see Aphrodite), "genetrix," 

94, 136; of Cnidus, 114, 136; de' 

Medici, 115, 136; Capitoline, 115, 

Verbruggen, Pierre, 331 ; Pierre the 

younger, 332 ; Henri Francois, 

Verlet, C. R., 362. 
Verrocchio, Andrea, 273-275, 284. 
Vicentino, Andrea, 285. 
Viotorg (see Nike). 
Vigarni, Felipe, 340, 341, 342. 
Vigne, Pierre de, 364, 365. 
Vilches, Jose, 375. 
Villabrille, Juan Alonso, 345. 
Villanueva, Juan de, 345. 
Vincotte, Thomas, 366. 
Viscardo, Girolamo, 304. 
Vischer, Peter, 317, 318 f., 324; 

Hermann, 318 ; Peter the younger, 

319 ; Hans, 319. 
Vittoria, Alessandro, 298. 
Volk, Leonard, 392. 
Volkmann, Artur, 375. 

Vonnoh, Mrs. Bessie, 405. 
Vriendt, Cornelis de, 330. 
Vries, A. de, 297, 325. 
Vulture-stele, 25, 27. 

Wade, George Edward, 386. 

Wagner, Peter, 326. 

Walker, Nellie, 405. 

Walter, Edgar, 405. 

Ward, Elsie, 405 ; John Quincy 

Adams, 392. 
Warner, Olin Levi, 394. 
Watts, G. F., 383 f. 
Weekes, Henry, 379. 
Weidenhaupt, 350. 
Weinman, Adolph Alexander, 401. 
Wells, Marion F., 405. 
Werve, Glaus de, 214. 
Westmacott, Sir R., 378. 
Westphalian sculpture of thirteenth 

century, 219 f. 
Whitney, Mrs. Anne, 394 ; Mrs. 

Harry Payne, 405. 
Wiedewelt, Johannes, 350. 
Wiligelnms, of Modena, 182, 183 ; of 

Verona, 182, 183. 
Winckelmann, 346, 350, 368. 
Witte, Peter de, 325. 
Wohlgemuth, Michael, 317, 324. 
Wolff, Albert, 370. 
Wood, Francis Derwent, 387. 
Wood, sculpture in, xxi. 
Woolner, Thomas, 380. 
Wrba, Georg, 374. 
Wren, Sir Christopher, 334. 
Wright, Mrs. Patience, 388. 
Wyatt, Richard John, 379. 

Xerxes, 45. 
Ximenes, Ettore, 349. 

Yandell, Enid, 405. 
Yeiyiu, 418. 

Zanza, Vasco de la, 339. 
Zarcillo, Francisco, 345. 
Zengoro, 418. 

Zeus at Qlympia, 88, 89, 90, 91. 
Zumbusch, Casper, 373. 
Zutt, R. A., 375. 

Printed in the United States of America. 

' I ■'HE following pages contain advertisements of a 
few of the Macmillan books on kindred subjects 

■ ^ i