Immagini della pagina



THE earliest works of Greek literature dealing with the subject of Sculpture were the practical treatises of artists whose aim was to lay down a canon of proportions applicable to the human figure. Of these the first was the 'Canon' of POLYKLEITOS (mentioned by Galen, No. 163), which dates from the latter half of the fifth century, and took the form of a commentary on the 'doryphoros' of the same master. If we may judge by the only quotation preserved (v. No. 163 note), it attempted a mathematical demonstration of the proportions which produce beauty in the human frame. Polykleitos had many followers in the branch of literature which he founded1, amongst whom we may select for remark EUPHRANOR (No. 230), and MENAICHMOS, an artist briefly referred to by Plin. N. H. xxxiv. 80 in the words 'Menaechmi uitulus genu premitur replicata ceruice; ipse Menaechmus scripsit de sua arte.' His date cannot be fixed with certainty, but he may probably be assigned to the fourth century B. C.

The history and criticism of sculpture became objects of a new interest in the days of the early Peripatetics and their many-sided literary activity. ARISTOTLE himself

1 Vitruu. VII. Praef. 14, gives a list of writers who 'praecepta symmetriarum conscripserunt.'


is the author of some interesting criticisms of painting1, and in Eth. vi. 1141 a, 10, mentions Pheidias and Polykleitos as the masters of their respective crafts-sculpture in marble in the first case, bronze-casting in the second. His successors in the Peripatetic school seem to have collected biographical material for the history of sculpture. Quasi-genealogical tables showing the succession in schools of philosophy were drawn up, and it would seem that artistic pedigrees were traced in the same manner. It is probable that DURIS of Samos, a pupil of Theophrastos, was among the first to take up these studies; we find him quoted by Pliny as the authority for an anecdote told of Lysippos. The collection of anecdotes and àñоpléɣμaтa was a favourite occupation with the Peripatetics; it has left marked traces in the conventional history of Painting as seen in Pliny's thirtyfifth book. No doubt, too, the numerous writers πeρì Evρnuáтwv to whom this period of learned activity gave birth, contributed somewhat to the history of Art.

The most important works, however, for our purpose were still those of men who were themselves sculptors. XENOKRATES, a member of the school of Lysippos (v. Part IV, § 2 ad fin.), is mentioned by Pliny as an authority both on sculpture and painting, and may with much probability be identified with the artist of the same name known to us from inscriptions found at Oropos and Elateia (Löwy 135 a b c). If this be correct, he was an Athenian by birth, the son of Ergophilos; his 'floruit' must be placed about the middle of the third century B. C. Pliny couples with his name that of ANTIGONOS, one of the sculptors employed by Attalos I of Pergamon on the memorials of his victories over the

1 Poet. 1448 a, 5, 1450 a, 26; Pol. v (viii). 1340 a, 35.

Gauls (No. 261). From a notice relating to the Nemesis of Agorakritos at Rhamnus (No. 137 note) we learn that he was a native of Karystos; and Wilamowitz therefore identifies him with Antigonos of Karystos, the author of lives of the philosophers and of a παραδόξων συναγωγή. We may with much probability attribute to one or other of these writers the series of criticisms tabulated in § 2, which clearly proceed from an admirer of Lysippos, and take no account of early sculpture. Beside criticism of style, however, these writers certainly gave a statistical account of the works of the great artists; they wrote of painting as well as of sculpture, and Diogenes Laertios (vii. 188) speaks of a picture whose existence is unknown to Xenokrates and even to Antigonos.

The work of Antigonos called forth a reply from the pen of POLEMON of Ilion, a widely-travelled man, who wrote numerous guide-books to the places which he visited. He flourished in the reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes (204-181 B.C.), and is probably to be identified with the person of the same name and origin who obtained πρoέevía from the Delphians in 176 B. C. (Dittenberger, Syll. 198). The title of one of his works is given as rà πρὸς ̓Αδαῖον καὶ ̓Αντίγονον, the first named author being a Mitylenaean by birth, who wrote περὶ ἀγαλματοποιῶν. We seem to hear an echo of the controversy in the passage of Zenobius (O. S. 836) referred to above, where the statement of Antigonos as to the inscription on the Nemesis of Rhamnus is met by a counter argument introduced by the words οὐ θαυμαστὸν δέι. To each of the great artistic centres of Greece-Olympia 2, Delphi,

1 For other possible cases cf. Urlichs, Ueber griechische Kunstschriftsteller, pp. 34 ff.

2 This is assumed by Preller, who assigns Fr. 21-23 to the work.

the Athenian Akropolis-Polemon devoted a special work. He busied himself with the collection of inscriptions bearing on the subjects of his study, and hence earned the sobriquet of ὁ στηλοκόπας. Other Tepinynτal were HELIODOROS of Athens, whose work de Atheniensium anathematis is mentioned by Pliny, and HEGESANDROS of Delphi, from whom the notice preserved in No. 31 is quoted by Athenaios. ALKETAS also wrote an account of the offerings at Delphi (v. No. 196 note).

The next phenomenon of importance in the history of art-criticism is that of the comparative method employed by the literary critics. It would seem that especially at Pergamon, where the royal house accumulated arttreasures of all periods-it became the fashion to draw up chronological tables of the great authors, to each of whom a brief criticism-often a catchword-was assigned; and we find unmistakable traces of an arrangement of sculptors and painters in parallel series1. Robert has endeavoured to show that the Canon of ten sculptors given by Quintilian (§ 4) was drawn up at Pergamon as the counterpart of the famous Canon of the Ten Orators, but it seems clear that that Canon is itself of later origin than was formerly supposed 2, and that we are only justified in attributing to the Pergamenes the formation of a list or Canon of sculptors of indefinite number arranged chronologically, with a fixed scale of appreciations. The great importance of their work lies in the fact rightly pointed out by Robert, that they put an end to


See § 4, Nos. 87, 125, and the collection of passages in Brzoska, De Canone decem oratorum, pp. 81 ff.

2 See the authors quoted by Susemihl, Geschichte der griechischen Litteratur in der Alexandrinerzeit, ii. 485, note 110, and 675, additional note on chap. xx, pp. 521-523.

« IndietroContinua »