Greek Sculptors at Work [Reprint 2020 ed.] 9783112319413, 9783112308141

Citation preview

BB GREEK SCULPTORS AT W O R K

PHATDON

CARL BLUEMEL

G R E E K SCULPTORS AT W O R K

WITH SIXTY-EIGHT

ILLUSTRATIONS

THE PHAIDON PRESS • L O N D O N

First German Edition 1927 Fourth German Edition 1953

All rights reserved by Phaidon Press Ltd 5 Cromwell Place, London S. W.j

Book Design by L. Goldscheider, London

Made in Great Britain 1955 Printed by R. MacLehose & Co Ltd, University Press, Glasgow

TRANSLATED

BY

LYDIA H O L L A N D

FIRST

ENGLISH

EDITION

IÇ55

L I S T OF I L L U S T R A T I O N S Head-piece (p. 5). Painting of a man carving a Herma, inner surface of a bowl, attributed to the vase-painter Epictetus. About 510 B.C. 8 cm. (3^ in.) diameter. Copenhagen, National Museum. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, Denmark, Vol. 3, Pi. 139, 2b. 1. Stele of Mynno. Height 59 cm. (23J in.). After 430 B.C. Berlin Museum, Nr. 737. Photograph by Schwarz. 2-4. Colossal statue on Naxos. Length 10-45 m - (34 ft. 3 in.). 6th century B.C. Photographs by Massow. 5. Figure of a youth on Naxos. Length 5-55 m. (18 ft. 2 in.). 6th century B.C. Photograph by Archaeological Institute of Athens. 6-8. Ram-bearer on Thasos. Height 3-50 m. (11 ft. 6 in.). Beginning of 6th century B.C. Photograph by Ecole française in Athens. 9. Fragment of a statuette with horse and rider from Sparta. Height 20 cm. (7-G in.). 6th century B.C. London, British Museum, Nr. B 476. 10. Figure of a youth from Mount Pentelikon. Height 2-10 m. (6 ft. 1 1 in). 6th century B.C. Melanges Nicole, 401, Pl. I. 1 1 . Statuette of a youth from Mount Pentelikon. Height 48 cm. (19 in.). 6th century B.C. London, British Museum Nr. B 472. 1 2 - 1 3 . Male torso from Naxos. Height 1-02 m. (3 ft. 4 in.). 6th century B.C. Athens, National Museum, Nr. 14. Photograph by the author. 14. Torso of a youth from Naxos. Height I-II cm. (3 ft. 8 in.). 6th century B.C. Berlin Museum, Nr. 1555. Photograph by Treue. 15. Male torso. Fake. Formerly in a private English collection. 16. Votive relief with sculptor's point and mallet. Height 35-6 cm. (14 in.). N e w York, Metropolitan Museum. Bulletin 21, 1926. 260, Pi. 6. 17. Sculptors' tools. 18. Kneeling handmaiden (o) from the Eastern pediment at Olympia. Height 1-15 m. (3 ft. 9 in.). About 460 B.C. Olympia, Museum. Photograph by the Excavation Committee. 19. Back view of a male torso, bending. First half of 5th century B.C. Athens, National Museum, Nr. 23-24. Photograph by Archaeological Institute in Athens, N.M. 1170. 20-21. Head of a youth. Height 14-2 cm. (5§ in.). 6th century B.C. Munich, Sculpture Gallery, Nr. 48. Photographs by the author. 22. Head of Apollo from the Western pediment at Olympia. Height 44 cm. (17 in.). About 460 B.C. Olympia, Museum. Photograph by the author from a cast. 23-24. Head of a youth from the Delion on Paros. Height 15 cm. (6 in.). About 480 B.C. Paros, Museum. Photographs: Wagner. 25-26. Head of a youth from the Asklepieion on Paros. Height 15 cm. (6 in.). About 480 B.C. Paros, Museum. Photographs: Wagner. 27. Red-figured hydria with the myth of Danae. About 500 B.C. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, Nr. T3.200. 28. Red-figured pitcher from Athens with Athena as sculptress. Height 21-5 cm. (8^ in.). After 470 B.C. Attributed to the so-called Painter of Pan. Berlin, Antiquarium, F 2415. Photograph: Schwarz. 7

29-30. Goddess enthroned. Clay-mould from Tarentum, with cast (Slightly enlarged). Height 11 cm. (4! in.). 5th century B.C. Berlin, Antiquarium, Nr. 30900. Photographs by Schwarz. 31-32. Youth, clay-mould with cast from Tarentum. Height 14 cm. (5^ in.). 4th century B.c. Berlin, Antiquarium, Nr. 31114. Photographs by Schwarz. 33. Gem with figure of a sculptor using plumb-line before a Herma. Size 13-1 mm. (c. \ in.). New York, Metropolitan Museum. G. Richter, Catalogue of Engraved Gems, 72, Nr. 89, Pi. 29. 34. Gem with a sculptor modelling a bust. Height 13-1 mm. (c. J in.). New York, Metropolitan Museum. G. Richter, Catalogue oj Engraved Gems, 84, Nr. 118, PL 33. 35. Gem with figure of sculptor with plumb-line before his model. Size 19-4 mm. (f in.). Collection at Gotha. 36. Statue of a youth from island of Rheneia. Height 1-75 m. (5 ft. 9 in.). First century B.c. Athens, National Museum, Nr. 1660. Photograph by Archaeological Institute in Athens, Nr. 365. 37. Head of a bearded man (L) from Eastern pediment at Olympia. Height 37 cm. (14I in.). About 460 B.C. Olympia, Museum. Photograph by the author from a cast. 38. Head of Herakles from lion metope at Olympia. About 460 B.c. Olympia, Museum. Photograph by Hamann. 39. Head of a Lapith (Q) from Western pediment at Olympia. Height 36-5 cm. (I4§ in.). About 460 B.C. Olympia, Museum. Photograph by Hamann. 40. Head of an old woman (B) from Western pediment at Olympia. Height 34 cm. (13^ in.). Copy in Roman imperial period. Olympia, Museum. Photograph by Hamann. 41. Male torso from Athens. Height 35 cm. (13I in.). First century A.D. Berlin Museum, Nr. 519. Photograph by Schwarz. 42. Illustration of measuring method with plumb-line. 43. Group: Dionysos with Satyr. Height 71 cm. (2 ft. 4 in.) Copy from Roman imperial period after a 4th-century original B.C. Athens, National Museum, Nr. 245. Photograph by Alinari 24233. 44.46. Male torso. Height 52 cm. (1 ft. 8 J in.). About 480 B.C. Museum on Aegina. Photograph by the author. 45.47. Torso of a youth. Height 85 cm. (2 ft. 9J in.). Copy from Roman imperial period after an original of the 5th century B.c. Athens, National Museum, Nr. 1624. Photograph by the author. 48. Torso of an athlete unlacing sandal. Height 75 cm. (2 ft. 5-3 in.). Copy from Roman imperial period after an original of the 4th century B.C. School of Lysippus. Athens, Acropolis Museum, Nr. 1325. Photograph by Archaeological Institute in Athens. 49. Head of a woman from Athens. Height 33 cm. (13 in.). After 440 B.C. Berlin Museum, Nr. 607. Photograph by Schwarz. 50. Female bust from island of Rheneia. Height 57 cm. (1 ft. 10 in.). First century B.C. Athens, National Museum, Nr. 779. Photograph by the author. 51. Head of a youth. Height 23 cm. (9 in.). Roman imperial period. Athens, 8

52.

53.

54.

55.

56. 57.

58. 59. 60.

61.

62.

63.

64. 65. 66.

67.

National Museum, Nr. 642. Photograph by Archaeological Institute, Athens, A . V . 180a. Water-spouting lion from the Temple of Zeus at Olympia. Height 53-5 cm. (21 in.). About 460 B.C. Pergamon Museum. Photograph by Schwarz. Water-spouting lion from the Temple of Zeus at Olympia. Height 48 cm. (19 in.). Copy from the Roman imperial period. Pergamon Museum. Photograph by Treue. Group of two men, one standing and one kneeling before him, from the Erechtheion frieze. Height of fragment 49 cm. (19J in.). Last quarter of 5th century B.C. Athens, Acropolis Museum, Nr. 1073. Photograph by Archaeological Institute in Athens. Relief from the Telephos frieze from Pergamon. Height 1-58 m. (5 ft. 2in.). 2nd century B.C. Berlin, Pergamon Museum. Photograph by Berlin Museum. Relief with a warrior from Naukratis. Height 36 cm. (14^ in.). 6th century B.C. London, British Museum, Nr. B 437. Relief from a little frieze of Nereid monument from Xanthos. Second half of 5th century B.C. London, British Museum, Nr. 908. Photograph by Mansell 2154. Votive relief with the Dioscuri from Athens. Height 37 cm. ( 1 4 J in.). 4th century B . C . Berlin Museum, Nr. 730. Photograph by Treue. Rider from the Parthenon frieze. Height of relief-slab 1 m. (3 ft. 3 in.). About 440 B.c. London, British Museum. Attic grave vase. Height 2-12 m. (6 ft. n|- in.). After 440 B.C. Athens, National Museum, Nr. 835. Conze, Die attischen Grabreliefs, II, Nr. 1073, Pi. 218-19. Gem with artisan using a running-drill. London, British Museum, Nr. 305. Middleton, The Engraved Gems of Classical Times, 105, Pi. 21. Photograph by British Museum. Rider from Breitfurt an der Blies. Height 2-85 m. (9 ft. 4 in.). 4th century A.D. Hildenbrand, Der römische Steinsaal des historischen Museums der Pjalz zu Speyer, p. 2 1 , Nr. 1, 111. 1 1 . The Coronation of the Virgin. School of Orcagna. Height 50 cm. (19^ in.). 14th century. Orvieto, Cathedral Museum. Photograph by HomannWedeking. Woman with column. School of Orcagna. Height 60 cm. ( 2 3 ! in.). 14th century. Orvieto, Cathedral Museum. Photograph by Homann-Wedeking. Relief with Christ between the Virgin and St. John. From the East choir of Naumburg Cathedral. 13 th century. Photograph by Kirsten. Relief with the Annunciation, Nativity, and Adoration of Shepherds. Height 69 cm. (2 ft. 3 in.). Beginning of 14th century. Pisa, Museum. Photograph by Institute for History of Art in Florence. Relief with an Allegory of Faith. Attributed to Mino de Fiesole (1431-84). Height 1-30 m. (4 ft. 3 in.). Berlin, Kaiser Friedrich Museum, Nr. 167. Photograph by Schwarz.

9

I . STELE OF M Y N N O

G R E E K SCULPTORS AT W O R K

I

when the Erechtheion was being built upon the Acropolis and the Parthenon had recently been completed, a sculptor, whose name has not come down to us but who had had his share in creating the masterpieces of Greek sculpture in the Athens of Pericles, was commissioned to carve a modest gravestone (i). Mynno had died in the city below. She was buried by the side of the road which led down to the Piraeus. Her relatives could not afford to erect a costly monument to her memory; for this reason it is only 60 cm. high. The pediment was left uncarved for the same reason, colour, which has unfortunately faded with the passing of time, having been the only factor depended upon to unite the parts in an harmonious and decorative whole. The relief, which has no border, represents the dead maiden at her household tasks. Mynno is seated beside a basket of wool and holds a spindle in her right hand; the distaff, which one would expect to see in her upraised left hand, must have been painted in. She gazes calmly ahead, deeply absorbed in her work. She has short hair and wears the customary garments, a chiton with girdle and an himation draped over it. All that has remained of her name can be read upon the upper edge of the relief and must be completed as Mynno. Since the name of her father or husband is not given Mynno cannot have been a freewoman. She was a slave or poor waif. But this did not prevent her, too, from having a gravestone which, in its simple humanity, its peacefulness and placid serenity, may take its place beside the figures of the Parthenon frieze. Probably no other people in history has honoured a servant-maid with a monument of such high nobility, and probably no other period in art has bequeathed us a stele of similar quality, exemplifying a lower level only of the sculptor's ability. An extremely high standard of technical accomplishment must be assumed if we are to explain the artistic penetration of a whole people, through all classes, to an extent that has never been equalled. It is therefore worth our while to discover all we can concerning the methods of Greek sculptors and to find out in what way they differed from those of later artists. N THE PERIOD

How can we today, after a lapse of 2500 years, find out how a Greek sculptor worked ? Ancient writers tell us nothing. What sculptors themselves, such as the great Polykleitos in the 5th century B.C. wrote, has

11

unfortunately been lost and anything else upon the subject in ancient literature was not written by experts but by historians and men of letters. It is usually anecdotal and intended only for the layman, so that practically nothing may be learnt from it. Occasional information in inscriptions and representations of sculptors at work are important. But the works themselves remain the chief source, above all those in which traces of the chisel are still visible and have not been eliminated during the process of smoothing the surface. The function of the various tools in the sculptured works must be recognised and linked up with our conception of the sculptor's method. This is not a difficult task, since the same few tools are employed today as in the past. The successive stages of work, however, and the use to which the various tools were put, were different. Every period has its own way of seeing and representing form, and technical methods have always been directly dependent upon the contemporary view of form. The variety of possibilities in form corresponds in sculpture to a great multiplicity of uses in the comparatively limited number of tools chiefly employed. The relics of ancient sculpture enable us to observe these methods at different periods and in different phases over such a wide field that we obtain a fairly clear view of the main lines of development and practice followed by the ancient sculptor throughout the centuries. In addition, the steady, uniform technical tradition among the Greeks permits us, when we possess merely one part of a work in progress, to draw conclusions through comparison with other, similar works from the same period. General rules may, nevertheless, be laid down only with due caution, since occasional deviations and variations are always to be reckoned with in dealing with works of different quality. Moreover, not only every school but even every atelier develops special technical peculiarities through its own experience and in relation to the material in use. The enumeration of countless fine points of this nature is not our present purpose and would only prove wearisome. What matters is to obtain a complete survey of the development of the plastic arts during the different periods of Greek culture, from the earliest rough outlines in stone to the state of final perfection. In the first place, there are many pieces which the artist abandoned before they were finished. These are the refuse of ancient sculpture, but this fact does not necessarily mean that they always come from the hand of the worst sculptors. Often, after weeks and months of labour the 12

marble reveals a flaw which could not be divined in the quarry. Cracks appear, for instance, or brittle patches which flake off and render further labour fruitless. On the other hand, external events have sometimes prevented completion. A place, such as Delos, for example, was sacked, the population deported, the sculptors' ateliers were abandoned, unfinished works buried and brought to light once more only through modern excavations. Some pieces were never completed because the sculptor died and there was no-one after his death who was able to carry the task through to its end. The most rare contingency, but the first to leap to mind when speaking of unfinished sculptures, is that the sculptor abandoned his work upon discovering that he had ruined the block. Naturally every stone-mason makes an occasional error, but there are so many ways of making good such faults that they are usually to be overcome with a certain amount of skill. Severely misdirected blows can only occur in the early stages when the sculptor detaches larger pieces from the block. But even then he still has it in his own hands to remedy the fault; a misdirected blow or the flaking away of too large a portion is extremely rare at a later stage in the work. Equally instructive are those sculptures which display some portions that were left unfinished because they would not be visible after the work was finally set up for exhibition. These sections are rarely left completely rough, the sculptor has usually saved himself merely the trouble of the wearisome last touches and polishing. The boundary between a finished and unfinished portion is never extremely clearly defined, because the sculptor never takes up his work with progressively finer tools at exactly the same place at these marginal points, which therefore frequently give us a cross-cut view of the last and most important stages in technique. But even finished sculptures occasionally bear traces of chiselling. Slight though they may be they are often all we need in order to provide a connection with earlier stages in unfinished works of the same nature.

13

2 - 3 . C O L O S S A L S T A T U E IN THE MARBLE Q U A R R I E S OF N A X O S

the most northerly point on the island of Naxos in the neighbourhood of Komiaki, a village, is to be found an unfinished statue of a bearded Greek colossus, lying in an ancient quarry on the slope of a hillside (2-4). It must be visualised erect, the left foot slightly forward, both upper arms pressed close to the body as far as the elbow. The lower arms extend straight ahead. Only the broad outlines of the drapery have been sketched in. The eyes are slightly hollowed out, the nose is indicated by means of a broad, smooth ridge. Several deep cracks appear across the head and chest; they may explain why the statue was left incomplete in the quarry. This is, however, uncertain, since the damage may have been caused by rain and sunshine, frost and earthquakes throughout the centuries. External events, also, such as war, money-shortage or the death of the man who commissioned it, may subsequently have caused the work to be abandoned. The figure apparently represents a Dionysos, which was not intended to be set up at the place where it was carved, but in some temple nearby, perhaps as a votive-offering for one of the neighbouring islands. The proportions of this gigantic figure are astonishing. It is nearly 1 1 metres (36 ft.) long, the chest is 1-70 metres (5ft. 71ns.) N e a r

14

broad, the upper arm measures nearly 2 metres (6 ft. 6 in.). If it were placed erect it would overtop the houses of Komiaki from the waist upwards. An attempt must be made to realise how small a proportion of this mighty figure, reclining on a steep hillside, could be surveyed at one time by the sculptor himself while the work was still in progress. Even today the full-length statue can be photographed in profile only by running a number of films consecutively. Since the Greeks were capable, nevertheless, of mastering the technical problems involved, despite the horizontal position, they must obviously have possessed exact measurements and proportions as for a building, which they sketched out upon the gigantic block of stone. The preliminary labour in the quarry aimed in the first place at reducing the huge block of marble. The sculptors would have had to deal with double or triple the weight if they had attempted to transport the whole original block from the quarry, and this would have been no small matter, given its size and the difficulties presented by the site. Another quarry on Naxos near Flerio in the province of Tragea has yielded up the unfinished statue of a naked youth (5), in a rather more advanced stage but still lying in the place where it was quarried. This work is also so heavy that all unnecessary transportation had to be avoided. If placed erect it would stand 5-55 metres (over 18 ft.) high and is 1 -45 metres (4 ft. 9 in.) broad. The naked youth's left leg is slightly forward, the arms are pressed close to the sides. There is no trace of nose, mouth or eyes; the whole figure is only sketched out in its main lines. This work, like the huge Dionysos, must have been started in the first half of the 6th century B.C. The colossal statue of a ram-bearer (6-8), which was found in the west wall of the Acropolis of Thasos, had reached a much more advanced stage of completion. The body had split in three places, below the chest, at the knees and across the feet. It has now been repaired and set up. It stands 3 -5 metres (11 ft. 6 in.) high, that is to say, it is a third of the size of the giant on Naxos. The naked figure repeats the customary archaic position with the left leg slightly forward, an attitude which Greek sculptors must have observed in Egyptian statues. The right arm, the greater part of which is missing, lay along the right side. The left holds a young ram clutched to the breast. The hair is bound up with a band and

15

6 - J . RAM-BEARER, ON

THASOS

8 . H E A D OF THE R A M - B E A R E R

falls in eight strands over the front and back, across the chest and over the shoulders. The work was apparently abandoned on account of the great cracks in the left side of the head, which extend across the chest as far as the ram's head. The donor and sculptor would not have dared to exhibit such a faulty piece in the precincts sacred to the god. The ram-bearer of Thasos, probably a representation of Apollo, is certainly the earliest of the three unfinished statues. It dates from the beginning of the 6th century B.C. and is one of the oldest surviving examples of sculpture in marble on this scale from the hand of a Greek sculptor. 19

These three statues alone permit us to establish certain rules for Greek sculptural technique which remained unchanged for many centuries and gradually lost their effectiveness only in the Hellenistic period. It is a remarkable fact and no mere chance that the essential outlines can be perceived in all three statues, although so much still remained to be done before they reached completion. The reason for this is that every Greek sculpture of the early period is, in its way, absolutely complete and whole at each stage of the work. The Greek sculptor worked at his block from all four sides and chiselled away one thin layer after another; and every layer thus removed from the block brought some new forms to light. The decisive point is, however, that the Greek sculptor always removed an entire layer right round the statue. He never worked at one leg or arm or head in itself but kept the whole in mind, and the figure was a unity at every stage of the work. He allowed no detail to thrust itself impudently forward; the eyes were as important as a curl of hair or the big toe. Every detail was a part of the whole and grew with the whole. One figure, hewn out of a square block, was modelled over at least a hundred times by the artist before it was finished, at first in vague outlines which became increasingly fuller, rounder and more living until the final touch was given. Is it any wonder, then, that so much force streams out from a Greek sculpture, since the sculptor had constantly brooded over every successive stage and in doing so had charged his figure with new strength ? The sculptor must already have put a great deal of labour into the three colossal statues in Naxos and Thasos before he was obliged to leave them unfinished and abandoned on the ground. The figures had already been hewn out of the stone in their main outlines, the proportions of the head, body and limbs were indicated, each sculpture already possessed an organic form. Three smaller unfinished marble figures, which were abandoned almost as soon as they were begun, permit us to imagine what the earlier stages of the work must have been. The precincts of Artemis Orthia in Sparta have yielded up a fragment of an unfinished marble equestrian figure (9), which is only 20 cm. (7! in.) high, 16 cm. (65 in.) broad and 6 cm. (2! in.) deep. The smoothly cut surface of one side reveals a carved outline of the horse's body, even the reins are hinted at by means of a thin line, and the artist had just begun to chisel the horse's silhouette out of the stone. The marble had been cut exactly along the 20

9 - F R A G M E N T OF A N E Q U E S T R I A N S T A T U E T T E FROM SPARTA

outline in front and below, but the sculptor had not quite reached the previously traced outline of the horse's head and back. The horse was originally intended to bear a rider. The body has unfortunately broken off and all that is left is a trace of the preliminary outline of his knee on the animal's back. The statue of a nude male figure (10), discovered near Dionyso on the northern slope of the Pentelikon in the neighbourhood of an ancient quarry, was hewn entirely in the rough in a similar fashion out of a block of marble 2-io metres (6 ft. n in.) high, by an Attic sculptor. He began by working on the principal outline of the front view. Both arms are joined to the body and although the position of the left foot, slightly extended, is hinted at, the whole block gives the impression of a flat slab in this first stage. The side-view has only just been attempted, the front view having been the most important in the beginning. The 21

work was left incomplete because there were flaws in the marble and pieces flaked off. The face, right shoulder and arm broke off for the same reason. Another male statuette ( n ) , only 48 cm. (19 in.) high and 12 cm. (4! in.) broad, which was also found near Dionyso, illustrates how the side-view was gradually included in these early stages of the work. This figure, too, has not got beyond the first angular stage; but the side-view shows what pains the sculptor took in order to form the contour of the back, the front view is no longer the main one. A life-size male figure (12-13), lacking both legs from a point just above the knees, has reached a much further stage of development. The block is at present 1 -02 metres (3 ft. 4 in.) high. A peasant found it on his property in 1 0 . FIGURE OF A Y O U T H , FROM M O U N T

PENTELIKON

the neighbourhood of the gigantic Dionysos, and it is now

in

the

National

Museum

at Athens. The sculptor had hewn out the figure on all four sides in broad, angular planes super-imposed one upon the other and was about to round off these main surfaces and link them up smoothly. Preciser details were, for the time being, of no interest. The hair, winch flows down over the shoulders, is one indefinite mass. The nose and eye-sockets are hinted at but nothing more. The sculptor has not tied himself down to any set form at this stage. Since this torso was buried in the earth and the surface was therefore not exposed for hundreds of years to the effects of the weather the chiselling can be studied in detail. In order to achieve this simplicity of outline the sculptor used an extremely simple tool. He adopted nothing but a bronze punch, which he applied at a right-angle to the block. The little holes it made may be clearly observed. Obviously the Greek sculptor used a stronger punch, perhaps even a pointed hammer in the early stages, and gradually went over to increasingly finer tools until he had finally modelled every detail according to plan. This would not, in itself, be in any way unusual. N o sculptor has, as 22

I I . S T A T U E T T E OF A Y O U T H , FROM M O U N T

PENTELIKON

yet, begun to work upon a marble sculpture with anything but a pointed hammer. What is most striking in the torso is the exceptionally fine punching and, above all, the extremely regular way in which the punch is applied invariably at a right-angle to the surface. Very few punch-holes due to an oblique stroke are to be seen. This kind of technique may be more readily understood when we consider that the Greeks were 23

1 4 - TORSO OF A Y O U T H ,

1 5 . MALE TORSO. FAKE

FROM N A X O S

unacquainted with refined steel and were obliged to work with soft bronze chisels or punches, which rapidly became blunt. The fine punch-holes on the torso in question could easily have been made by an extremely blunt punch. The object was to loosen little pieces of the marble surface with the punch so that they would splinter off. The Greek sculptor carried on with this type of work until he could smooth the surface with emery and pumice stone. This was a wearisome task which required great patience and, in any case, did not always eliminate the traces of too heavy strokes with the punch. The surfaces of early Greek sculptures, in particular, are often covered from head to foot with little holes, the majority of which are not due to subsequent damage but are merely punch-holes that went too deep and were not completely obliterated in the process of smoothing. The punching often rendered the marble surface friable, and it then easily decomposed. The entire surface of a handsome male torso from Naxos (14), now in the Altes Museum in Berlin, 25

is covered with little holes which are an especially good example of this kind of punching. This method of treating marble constitutes one of the chief differences between Greek stone-cutting and that of later periods. All marble sculptures in modern exhibitions and museums have a transparent, alabasterwhite surface, which the uninitiated observer imagines to be inseparable from marble as such. He would hardly consider a Greek sculpture to be carved out of marble, because the surface is opaque, granulous, yellowish grey in colour and looks almost like simple lime-stone. The only reason for this is the different way in which the stone was treated during the process of work. If a punch is used at right-angles to the block, as the Greek sculptors used it, the stroke 'bruises' the fine crystal particles in the stone to a depth often of 2 cm. (f in.), they lose their transparency and the stone in consequence looks dull. A modern sculptor avoids this so-called 'stunning' of the marble. He uses a punch or trimming-hammer at rightangles to the stone only in the earliest stages of the work. At a later stage the blows are lighter because he uses the tool at a more oblique angle and when he approaches the surface of his sculpture he adopts a flat tool, which looks something like a flat-chisel, and takes off the final layers with the utmost caution, without stunning the marble. This process is followed by careful polishing and the marble takes on the gleaming, transparent appearance which the layman imagines to be characteristic of it. To enter into an argument upon which method of treatment of the surface is more beautiful would be an idle task. But this very bloom upon the surface, which, after continuous working with the punch brings almost every grain to life, lends the marble a velvety depth and is peculiar to Greek sculpture alone to this degree, would be eliminated by treatment with a flat chisel. The votive-relief offered to a divinity in gratitude by a Greek sculptor takes on an almost symbolical meaning, when we consider the conspicuous use made of the punch in Greek sculpture, for all he chose to represent were a mallet and a simple punch (16). These were the two main tools with which he created his life-work. They deserved to be honoured by this modest tribute. The Greeks learnt this intensive use of the punch from the Egyptians, Babylonians and Assyrians, their masters in the art of sculpture, who by this method alone were able to overcome the difficulties involved in breaking down the surface of their hard stones, such as granite and basalt. 26

l 6 . V O T I V E RELIEF W I T H S C U L P T O R ' S POINT AND M A L L E T

But whereas the Egyptians were obliged to work their granite by this method, the Greeks developed throughout the centuries an extremely able technique conscientiously adapted to the more friable marble they used. We must always remember, in addition, that Greek sculpture was previously coloured. It is hardly necessary to point out that colour suits a dull surface better and is more easily absorbed by it than by a smooth, polished one. These differences between Greek punch-work, with its subsequent smoothing of the surface with emery or pumice-stone, and the exhaustive flat-chisel work adopted by Roman and more recent sculptors in order to avoid any stunning of the stone, often escape us. We have become accustomed to the appearance of Greek sculptures and take it for granted that they must look different from Roman or modern works. This is regrettable and was not always the fact, as we learn from a short anecdote in Stanley Casson's book, The Technique of Early Greek Sculpture (p. 201). When the Parthenon sculptures were proposed for purchase in London in 1816, Richard Payne Knight, speaking before the Royal Commission, expressed the opinion that these sculptures had not been smoothed with a flat chisel and rasp but had been smoothed immediately 27

17- SCULPTOR'S TOOLS: (c)

BULL-NOSED

(f)

POINTED

(A) P O I N T OR P U N C H ,

CHISEL,

HAMMER,

(D)

CLAW-CHISEL,

OR T R I M M I N G

(l) RUNNING-DRILL,

(B) F L A T CHISEL, (e)

HAMMER,

BOUCHARDE, (g,

( k ) D R I L L , (/) A U G E R

28

h)

RASPS,

over the punchwork. Since authentic Greek sculptures, such as the Laocoon, bore clear traces of having been smoothed with a flat chisel and rasp, he came to the conclusion that the figures of the Parthenon frieze could not be Greek. He considered them to be Roman works of Hadrian's period. Payne Knight had, in fact, been extremely observant, although the conclusion he drew was mistaken. The figure of Laocoon is about 350 years younger than the sculptures of the Parthenon and the technique is so very similar to Roman that the smoothing of the surface is no longer typical of works dating from the classical period. If anyone still doubts whether the process of work adopted for the Parthenon sculptures were really such as we have described we can only recommend him to examine the figures from the pediment of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia (18) and the old Temple of Apollo in Delphi; the backs are unfinished and the work may be seen in its last stages. In the middle of the back we find a work done with the punch, such as may be observed in all unfinished Greek sculptures, and these punched surfaces join the smooth front-surface at the sides without any intermediate stage. On the borderline between the unfinished and the smoothed surfaces we find, at most, an occasional stroke with the punch that went too deep and could not be entirely obliterated through rubbing with emery and pumice-stone. The crouching torso of a man (19) in the National Museum in Athens also exhibits traces of punch-work on the back which is carried over with no transition into the smoothed, finished surface; no trace of a flat chisel may be seen. All imperial sculptures give us an entirely different picture, in so far as the back-surface has been left unfinished. The smoothing process was carried through in various stages clearly distinguishable one from another in a regular sequence, which, however, in the transition from finished to unfinished did not always completely overlap. In the middle we find a form of punch-work that is rather coarser than usual, on both sides of which are traces of claw-chiselling, then comes a section of flat-chiselling and finally the traces of a rasp. Every modern sculptor follows more or less the same sequence of tool-work today in smoothing the surface. The nude male torso (15) is supposedly an early Greek piece; minor details indicate that this, too, was not completely finished. N o traces whatsoever of the punch are to be seen. The whole surface, on the other hand, 29

1 8 . K N E E L I N G H A N D M A I D E N F R O M THE EASTERN P E D I M E N T OF THE TEMPLE A T O L Y M P I A

has been roughened with a claw-chisel. This piece presents no difficulties whatsoever. It is a modern fake. The sculptor has not dared to risk stunning the marble, because as a student he was constantly warned against this danger. But his beautifully copied torso had no antique look about it. He therefore, in order to give it an antique surface, roughened it over from top to bottom with a claw-chisel. Only a layman can be deceived by this trick. It is surprising that even the best fakers have taken so little trouble to learn the elementary rules of ancient sculptural technique. They usually make their fakes according to modern processes and then attempt to give the piece an antique look by breaking down the surface through artificial methods. In this they usually fail, because enough of the modern surface is always left to betray them. 30

1 9 - B A C K V I E W OF A M A L E T O R S O , FROM A T H E N S

The Sculpture Gallery in Munich possesses an archaic head (20-21), belonging to a nude statue of a youth dating from the middle of the 6th century B.C., which is said to have come from one of the Greek islands. It was abandoned at a very late stage. One may still see the groove for a band that was to encircle the head, with its long hair falling over shoulders and back. The locks of hair behind the ear, which may be seen from the side, were only blocked in. The left side is not nearly so far advanced as the right, the ear and hair form one simple, smooth surface. The forehead

31

2 0 . A R C H A I C H E A D OF Y O U T H

and cheeks have already been smoothed almost to a finish with emery and pumice-stone, and everywhere the customary traces of excessively deep strokes with the punch may be recognised in the shape of lighter dots. The protruding eyes have not yet been modelled in detail, there is no sign of the eyelids. The traces of a finer punch may be recognised on the 32

right eye and ear and beside them the traces of another tool. The hair on the right side and the left eye-socket exhibit four or five grooves running perpendicular to one another, which indicate the use of a claw-chisel. This tool is, in fact, nothing but a more complicated kind of fine point or punch and is used in more or less the same way. The sculptor in the early Greek period used it almost exclusively for rapid strokes almost at a rightangle to his figure. The work with the punch is usually followed by work with a claw-chisel in order to eliminate and smooth over uneven patches. It is often merely used as an aid to the sculptor's eye, in that it helps to differentiate various planes which have all been worked upon with the punch, in the first place; by means of this tool, for instance, the line is drawn between the hair and the skin of the face, or between a part of the clothing and naked parts of the body. Early Greek sculptors occasionally used a flat chisel, not, however, in order to smooth the surface but only in order to lend a particular emphasis to certain details by means of sharper cuts and to bring them into greater relief against the surrounding portions. Eye-lids, for instance, can be differentiated from the eyeball through work with the flat chisel and the Hps given a clearer outline, but the main evidence is seen when the Greek sculptor desired to bring out delicate strands of hair, or when elaborate, zig-zag decorative folds were carved like fine chiselled ornament. The same is true of inscriptions; the flat chisel is the only tool for cutting out the sharp corners and edges of single letters in marble. The use of the flat chisel, although only partly visible, is most instructive upon the right side of the head of Apollo on the western pediment in Olympia (22). This figure shows clearly to what extent the work was carried out with a punch. But the single strands of hair on the sides of the head in the rough parts at the back have been chiselled out clearly and squarely with the flat chisel, without any transition. The sculptor may also use a bull-nosed chisel, which makes flat, rounded grooves in the stone when the cutting edge is applied at an oblique angle. Waves of hair or the regular fine folds in the draperies of many female statues were occasionally worked with this tool. But a sculptor would never work upon naked parts of the body with this form of chisel; these he sculpted exclusively with the punch and flat chisel. Greek sculpture in the early classical period brings no change in the use of these various tools. The unfinished head of a youth from Delion on 34

2 2 . HEAD OF A P O L L O , FROM T H E W E S T E R N

PEDIMENT

OF THE T E M P L E AT O L Y M P I A

Paros makes this clear (23-24). It is only 15 cm. high and is almost finished. The whole surface was punched, the smoothing of the face had been begun. Only the hair-band, the line between the hair and the face, the eyes and mouth show a few sharp outlines carved with the flat chisel. The face of the little finished head from the Asklepieion (25-26), with its somewhat granular surface, also bears clear traces of the punch, whereas the delicately carved curls and waves of hair, the eyelids and mouth have been worked with a razor-sharp flat chisel. 35

2 3 - 2 4 . H E A D OF A Y O U T H , FROM THE D E L I O N ON PAROS

2 5 - 2 6 . H E A D OF A Y O U T H , FROM THE A S K L E P I E I O N ON PAROS

36

Sculptors apparently took over the drill from carpenters and joiners and adapted it to their own use. It is the simplest of tools, in point of fact nothing more than a sharp flat chisel, terminated in a pointed edge; it is whirled between the palms of the hands and bores holes in the stone. In order to put more power behind the tool it is usually given the form of a joiner's drill with a large round knob or grip. The sculptor can then support it against his chest and turn it by hand. Modern sculptors call this tool an auger. If several holes are bored in sections where the work must be carried to some depth in the stone the advantage is obvious, for then the punch can be used at a greater depth and larger portions removed than when the whole process is carried out laboriously with the punch alone. The long, narrow grooves of folds, especially, can be more easily worked with a drill than with any other tool, because the drill-holes may be placed close together and the small fragments of stone remaining between them may then be removed with the punch. A drill of this kind has bored to such a depth in some parts of the Olympia sculptures that its effect may still be seen underneath the surface of the finished work. Traces of a running-drill may already be seen occasionally in Greek sculptures of the second half of the 5 th century B.C. The drill itself in this form of the tool is inserted into a wooden shaft which is attached to a powerful screw. The drill and the wooden shaft are then fixed into a strong handle in such a way that they may be revolved. A cord is wound round the screw and stretched over a metal bow, which the sculptor grips in his right hand. A sweeping movement sets shaft and drill in rapid motion and the left hand then guides the drill across the revolving shaft. A worker using this tool may be seen upon a gem in the British Museum (61). Although he is not a sculptor but apparently a gem-cutter, the gem itself gives an excellent picture of the way in which the tool was handled. A joiner using the same tool upon the lid of a little wooden box may be seen upon a vase in Boston (27), which represents the myth of Danae. A drill of this kind enables the sculptor to penetrate into the hidden depths of every little fold and hollow far more easily than with a chisel. The stiff, complicated draperies on later Greek sculptures could not have been carved otherwise. The use of the drill was continually extended; it was adopted not only for hollowing out the grooves of drapery, but for waves of hair and lending a deeper shadow to eyelids while in the case of 37

2 7 . CARPENTER USING A RUNNING-DRILL. RED-FIGURED HYDRIA WITH THE M Y T H OF D A N A E

reliefs it was used almost like a pencil in order to trace an outline in deep furrows. Still another tool remains to be mentioned, the rasp; it is similar to a file and leaves fine, irregular scratches upon the marble. It was in great demand by early Greek sculptors when they had to prepare a surface for colouring. Later it was universally adopted, became the chief tool for smoothing the surface and replaced emery and pumice-stone. The back of a little male torso (41), found by the theatre of Herodes at the foot of the Acropolis and now in the Berlin Museum, bears clear indications of such filing.

38

A l l the unfinished sculptures dealt with so far date from the early Greek period. They were all erect, taut figures whose construction could be comprehended as a whole. In every case the chief axis of the limbs lies parallel to one side of the original square block. The sculptor could sketch out his figure from all sides on the marble at the beginning and then carve it layer by layer out of the stone. Two thousand years earlier Egyptian sculptors had worked in the same fashion and from them the Greeks learnt the main principles of carving in stone. But at the beginning of the 5th century B.C. a decisive change occurred. The Greek sculptor discovered how to go beyond the conception of a rigid frontal view, and through the help of perspective was able to lend each figure the movement he desired. Something entirely new was given to the world. The foundations for the splendid development of Western art were laid in Greece through this discovery of genius. The Greek sculptors themselves must have encountered great difficulties in carrying through this new development, for they had to incorporate innumerable freshly observed facts into their preliminary sketch and the subsequent moulding of their figures. When an early Greek sculptor approached his work from the four main sides of the block and carved out his statue in broad lines, every stroke of the punch was placed within a sharply defined space. When, at a further stage, he fashioned smaller transitional planes between the four main surfaces they, too, were planes with clearly defined limits. Only gradually did he begin to work upon curves and more delicate transitions, which could also easily be grasped as a whole because they were circumscribed. But the difficulties increased enormously when the sculptor was no longer content with the four main aspects and began to incorporate many other view-points beside the main frontal one into his work. The variety of aspects deprived him of his fixed points of reference and the planes he had previously relied upon in order to build up his figures. In the future he would have, in fact, no more flat planes but only curves. His statue became, in the process of work, a complex of extremely varied outlines. A conception of planes, but super-imposed upon one another and running counter to each other, must still have been a help to him. But the only real point of reference he had must now always be one of the many outlines. Every stroke had to be placed, as far as possible, in relation to the contour of the whole. 39

For this reason an artist working upon a frieze or pediment found that it was an additional aid rather than an increase of labour when he also carved the reverse side of his figures in their main lines, although no-one was to see them. The difference, for example, between the front and the back of the kneeling figure of a girl (18) from the eastern pediment of Olympia is not so great. The sculptor merely renounced the final, wearisome task of smoothing over the surface after the punching had been terminated. The artistic practice of the period, as I have already pointed out, rendered such a process necessary, in order to give the figure balance even from the side and oblique view. A completely superficial roughing-out of the reverse side sufficed the sculptor. The work could thus be embraced as a cubic entity and the working out of precise details would not have contributed much to the whole effect. Whereas the Greek sculptor of the archaic period, working with the punch, carried all four aspects of his work through to a final close at each stage before proceeding with the following one, the sculptor of the classical period had to work once right round the whole figure with the punch before beginning to remove the next layer. Later on, some years after the completion of the Olympia sculptures, the figures on the pediment of the Parthenon were not only sketched out on the backs but even completely finished, even if not in such detail as the front; this corresponds with the far-reaching formal demands which were being made by this period. The figures of the frieze could never have harmonised so finely if the reverse and side views had not been taken into account while they were being carved. This was a matter of purely technical necessity, the figures could be carved out of the stone in this way only and no other. The germ of this art is latent in archaic sculpture. When Greek artists of the archaic period already carved single figures that could stand alone, without the help of any support or architectonic background, in opposition to the entirely different conception of the Egyptians, they had taken the first and most important step towards a kind of sculpture which took all aspects into account and was to find in the contour of the whole one of its most weighty aids. When engaged upon extremely mobile figures the sculptor had, in the future, to take precautions in order not to lose himself in his block of marble. He first had to form a model in wax or clay; in order to make his 40

2 8 . A T H E N A M O D E L L I N G A HORSE. R E D - F I G U R E D P I T C H E R FROM A T H E N S

model durable a stucco or plaster cast of it was then made and only at this stage could the work be commenced in stone. A picture upon an Attic vase shows us a clay-model of this kind. The goddess Athena in person is seen modelling a horse (28). As a practising artist she has made herself comfortable, but in order to be recognised still as a goddess she has kept on her helmet with its tall crest. She has laid her other weapons aside and draped her cloak around her like an apron in order to leave her hands free. 4i

She is seen modelling a horse out of clay. A large heap of this material lies at her feet and she has some more ready in her left hand while she is engaged upon modelling the horse's mouth with her right. The work is well-advanced, although the lower part of the right hind-leg is missing. The clay-figure stands upon a low pedestal which is apparently made of wood. Some carpenter's and joiner's tools, comprising a bow-saw and a running-drill, may be seen hanging upon the left wall of the atelier. In order to make the modelhng-clay seem more life-like the painter has simply coloured the horse and two heaps of the material with a claysolution. It has been suggested that the picture shows the goddess Athena modelling the Trojan horse. This explanation seems rather far-fetched; the painter was probably not thinking of the legend at all, but only wished to represent Athena as the patroness of artists and artisans. She is modelling a horse herself because they were frequently dedicated to her in bronze or marble upon the Acropolis in Athens. How were the models produced which Greek sculptors needed for their larger works in marble ? At first a small one was formed in wax or clay, but this only served to render the construction of a larger one possible. A life-size head in damp clay weighs more than half a hundredweight alone. Larger models therefore require a heavy metal armature, which often has to include even the finger-tips, in order to support the immense weight of clay. These frames remain rigid during the work and cannot be twisted into a different shape, but have to be constructed from the very beginning in complete detail, with reference to the model-sketch. This is an extraordinarily difficult task, which pre-supposes a great deal of technical experience. Even when the larger models have been built up the sculptor can do nothing with them because their great weight and fragility make them completely immovable. But he is, on the other hand, obliged to be able to shift them about while working. He must be able to place them where he needs them, especially in the light, so that the stonecutters can see what they have to do by constant reference to the model. For this reason parts of the whole are then formed in stucco or plaster. The perfecting of all minor details of form is then carried out once more upon the moulds. The sculptor finally obtains his model from these forms in the shape of a cast and can begin to work in marble. The models are cast hollow, like terracotta, possess the necessary 42

consistency, can be moved about in the atelier and be taken to pieces again as required. This latter point is extremely important. Imagine a sculptor working in his studio upon the head of Zeus from the eastern pediment in Olympia. His model would be of little avail if it were lying upon a table below him. He would obtain only a bird's-eye view from a distance, but this would be of no practical help. He can work upon the head only when the model cast is set up beside him upon a scaffolding, where he can reach it at any time and shift it into the position he needs. Even then the sculptor usually stands so close to his work that he is unable to obtain a full view of the whole figure, his difficulties are therefore great enough. How is he to achieve the proper proportions if he has no large model or life-size details to work from ? He cannot climb up and down his scaffolding the whole time. Pediment-groups for a temple cannot be improvised from small model-sketches alone. They imply great precision, where even a millimetre counts. If the groups are to stand in a proper relation to one another, in which case the spaces between the individual figures are as important as the figures themselves, and if the varying superimposed planes are to form an harmonious whole for the eye of a beholder looking at them from below, the sculptor must be able to bring the models themselves to the pediment and test out their effect upon the spot. The work in moulds, which has been mentioned previously, has been deduced as a necessary part of the process by various modern sculptors who have busied themselves with Greek sculpture, and additional proof may be found in the fact that many Greek terracotta forms which have survived are clearly not only casts made from clay or wax models, but the mould itself has been thoroughly gone over by the artist. The detailed finish and rounded fullness of forms, which run smoothly into one another without leaving any clumsy gaps, can scarcely be obtained by working only upon the soft model, which is sensitive to the lightest pressure of the fingers. Such finish can only be obtained by working upon the plaster mould; since the material is more compact every irregularity can be eliminated in the mould, with the result that the finished cast of the model will be flawless. 43

2 9 . E N T H R O N E D G O D D E S S . CLAY M O U L D FROM T A R E N T U M

Moulds of isolated parts are particularly important where larger models are concerned. It is almost impossible, even in the best atelier, to ensure that every part of a large clay model, which is almost immovable on account of its weight, will stand in the proper light as required. Individual parts may easily be shifted round into the desired position and then receive the final touches. 44

30. ENTHRONED GODDESS. CAST FROM 2 9

The little moulds from Tarentum and the plaster casts made from them (29-32) are not easily identifiable as such at a first glance, on account of their hollow form. The scene represented is always shown in the round, but in reverse to the cast made from the mould. This impression is true not only of the photographs but also of the originals themselves. A sculptor with some practice in working upon such moulds would natur45

3 1 - 3 2 . Y O U T H . C L A Y MOULD FROM TARENTUM, AND CAST

ally become extremely skilful. This must be particularly true of Greek artists, who were masters in the art of gem and stamp-cutting in the mould. The sculptor has the additional advantage of working in a compact and stable material which does not crumble and break up like clay. The curves in the mould of the naked youth, for instance, are far rounder and more organic. The cast from the mould seems flat in comparison. But since the artist can portray in his model only that which he sees quite clearly, he is bound, in his striving after ultimate perfection of form, to come to this process of working upon the mould. When a modern sculptor is faced with the problem of carrying out a large model in marble or stone he can have a machine conveyed into his atelier, which will do the work of pointing for him. But he can also, with the help of three callipers, map out the position of his figure point by point in the stone, by means of exact measurements. This modern system 46

of translating a model to stone by means of measuring, is based upon the geometric proposition that when three points lie in one plane a fourth point in space can then be accurately calculated, the three being taken as points of departure. The sculptor first of all decides upon three points in his model and corresponding ones in the stone from which his figure is to be carved. In the case of a simple standing figure he usually places one point on the head, the two others on the right and left side of the front plinth. Any necessary fourth point on the front of the model can be measured out with callipers and then be calculated to correspond upon the stone. The reverse and the side views are estimated in a similar fashion, first upon the model, and corresponding main points fixed in the stone, in order to obtain further points of reference. Even when engaged upon a portrait bust a sculptor may place three or four hundred points, which number naturally increases in the case of a full-length statue, so that the distance between one guiding-point and the next is often not more than a few millimetres. Mechanical and unimaginative work, in the truest sense of the word, can thus be performed. The task of measuring and boring often lasts for weeks or months. This labour has nothing to do with art. The stone looks unpleasantly like a sponge until the very end, for the highest points on the model are point-holes in the marble. An unfinished work of this nature gives no hint of the figureto-be, whereas in free sculpture the work of art may be recognised in its main lines even from the first, and almost every successive stroke of the punch is in itself creative, claiming from the artist his whole attention. W e need dwell no longer upon a description of modern technical methods of measuring, since we possess no ancient sculptures which offer any proof that they were calculated by the customary modern method of the three callipers and pointing. W e find occasional measuring-points on both finished and unfinished sculptures from the past, but they are never very frequent, because the ancient measuring system adopted for transferring a model to stone was extremely primitive, even in the imperial period. Sculptors still use them today, but rarely for stone, although they may do so in order to transfer a small model to its final size in stone. In this case the sculptor attaches plummets to both models at certain projecting places which he has selected previously, measures the distance between the points he desires to transfer from the smaller model, working horizontally 47

as far as one of the plumb-lines and then up its length to the point of attachment. He then calculates these two measurements in proportion to the larger-size model and carries over his plumb-line and horizontal measurement to the latter. Measurements may be reckoned even by this simple method but they are naturally not so precise, because a plumb-line tends to sway. Ancient sculptors were also familiar with this method of measuring by means of a plumb-line. An early Greek gem (33), now in the Metropolitan Museum in New York, represents a naked man seated before a Herma. He is holding a little rod and plumb-line in his right hand and lets it down over the Herma. His left hand is stretched down towards the plummet, probably in order to prevent it swaying. This picture most certainly represents a sculptor at work in front of a model in some pliable material, probably intended for a bronze-cast, as we can tell from the modelling-tool which he holds in his right hand. If the gem-engraver had intended to show him at work upon stone he would have given him a punch and hammer to hold. A later representation on a cornelian in the Gotha Collection (35) is even clearer. A naked man is shown leaning forward on the left; he, too, is holding a little rod and a plumb-line in his right hand and his left hand is stretched down towards the cord. Another plumb-line hangs over his shoulder. A younger figure kneels on a kind of column in front of him; this is certainly meant to represent a clay-model on the modelling-block. One may well imagine that the archaic sculptor, who certainly used no models for his carvings in stone, was obliged to test the accuracy of his severely symmetrical construction by means of a plummet in the first place. As soon as the stage had been reached when the sculptor adopted a model for his stone-carvings this simple technical aid given by the plummet was bound to be followed by the equally simple horizontal measurements. Every sculptor takes measurements constantly when at work, at first by sight, then with two fingers of one hand and finally with a plummet or piece of string. This is an extremely obvious aid, with which every builder, joiner or shipwright is familiar. Now, since the sculptor on the more recent gem is holding a plumb-line in his right hand and has another hanging down over his back we may perhaps be entitled to come to the conclusion that the model standing before him was not intended for a bronze-cast but was to be translated into stone. The second plummet would have been necessary in that case. 48

33-35 RELIEFS ON GEMS 3 3 . S C U L P T O R USING A P L U M B - L I N E B E F O R E A HERMA 3 4 . SCULPTOR MODELLING A BUST 35.

S C U L P T O R USING A P L U M B - L I N E B E F O R E A M O D E L

A n unfinished statue of a youth, which was found upon the island o f Rheneia (36) in the neighbourhood of Delos, gives us a particularly lively idea of the way in which a Greek sculptor in the first century B.C. translated his model into stone by means o f measuring. It is more than 400 years younger than the unfinished archaic statues from Naxos, Paros, Thasos and Attica. The great difference leaps to the eye at a first glance. D

49

During the intervening centuries the artist's vision of form has undergone a change and with it his whole fashion of setting about his work. In the first place, this figure of a youth exhibits various stages in the process at one and the same time. Every possible transition may be seen, from the finest claw-chiselling to the coarsest pointing. The figure fails for this reason to give the impression of being an harmonious whole. Archaic statues, on the contrary, are far more organic and comprehensive, even when they have been abandoned at a similar unfinished stage. In addition, this statue is not punched in the round out of the stone; only the front view has been elaborated, the back is still embedded in the square block, although the sculptor certainly intended to carve a figure in the round. If this figure is compared with the Olympia statues the situation is seen to be completely the reverse. In the case of the Olympia figures the sculptor aimed at producing the effect of a relief in the pediment, but nevertheless he gave each separate statue as rounded and complete a form as possible while he was engaged upon it, in order to grasp the relationship between the whole

3 6 . S T A T U E OF A Y O U T H , FROM THE ISLAND OF RHENEIA

50

and the parts of the whole more clearly himself. The sculptor at Rheneia, on the contrary, like Michelangelo in the case of the Slaves at the tomb of Pope Julius, began with the relief and ended with a sculpture in the round. In order to establish the various depths in the stone, which he cannot test from the sides during the early stages, the sculptor requires a measuring-system with fixed holes, which he can adjust to his model. Above the forehead of the statue of a youth from Rheneia is a square block of stone, about as large as a fist, which would have been removed at a later stage. Three boring-holes may be seen, two of which correspond with two others at the lower part of the statue. The first is to be found in a square hole between the feet, the second at the edge of the left foot and the third probably broke off together with the front of the right foot. On the belly of the statue along the border between the second and third rows of punching we find 16 round holes about 3 cm. diameter and 2 cm. deep. They were hollowed out with a bull-nosed chisel. These peculiar marks may easily be explained. The sculptor had stretched cords between the holes in the boss above the forehead and the three holes at the foot of the statue; he must have done so previously on the plaster model. He then, in the course of work, took his measurements of length on the model and subsequently on the stone, and afterwards worked out his depths horizontally from the cords, inside the bull-nosed-chisel holes on the belly and left hip of his figure. This method constitutes, so far as it goes, a step further in development beyond the elementary plumb-line shown on the cut gem, for the sculptor was now using, not only one plumb-line but three different cords which were not left dependent, but were made fast to the foot of the statue. The sculptor could obviously take far more precise measurements from these taut cords than he could from a swaying plumb-line. One can imagine a sculptor attaching plumb-lines to his model and to corresponding projecting bosses on his stone and from these vantagepoints taking measurements of depth into the furthermost sections of his work, in order to discover how far he must penetrate. Measurements of this nature would be of great assistance, even if he did not mark them by means of holes, as in the case of the statue from Rheneia. This process was certainly adopted. Several in a series of heads from the pediments and metope of the Temple of Zeus in Olympia still conserve 5i

3 7 - HEAD OF A BEARDED M A N , FROM THE EASTERN PEDIMENT OF THE TEMPLE AT OLYMPIA

plumb-line bosses or their remains above the forehead. This system of measurement must accordingly have been in use by the first half of the 5th century B.C. The bearded Seer seated upon the ground in the eastern pediment of Olympia (37) still carries a heavy boss over his forehead. Perhaps it was never removed because it was mistakenly interpreted at a later period as part of the hair. The kneeling Lapith from the western pediment in Olympia (39), who is seen throttling a Centaur, exhibits traces of a broken patch among the curls over his forehead. This must be the remains of a boss which was not skilfully removed. The position could not have been better chosen; it gave the sculptor the possibility of taking measurements of depth in numerous, difficult sections, where he had to penetrate into the stone, with the added difficulty, that two figures cut across one another. The sculptor also appears to have marked out fixed

52

3 8 . HEAD OF HERAKLES, FROM THE LION METOPE OF THE TEMPLE A T OLYMPIA

positions for plumb-lines in the Olympian metope. The heads of Herakles on the lion and Stymphalid metope (38) exhibit a long cut buried in the mass of hair over the forehead; it was just broad enough for the sculptor to be able to press the cord of his plummet into it with his thumb. Here, too, the sculptor took into consideration the final painting of the statue which would conceal the little cut from the eyes of a beholder standing far below in front of the temple. But these fixed points were useful to the sculptor for other purposes. He could take many other measurements from them, with the help of his plumb-line. Great precision was not the main point, because at this time he still carved his figure free-hand out of the stone. Measuring by plumb-lines was still further developed in the Roman period. A series of small figures has been discovered in Athens at the foot of the Acropolis; they were abandoned before completion and all bear the same traces of points. Each piece has two measuring-holes, one above the other; they may be seen, for example, on a male torso only 35 cm. ( 1 3 ! in.) high, which is in the Berlin Museum (41). The front is somewhat corroded, but every stroke of the rasp may be identified on the back. 53

3 9 - H E A D OF A L A P I T H , FROM T H E W E S T E R N P E D I M E N T OF T H E T E M P L E AT O L Y M P I A

Measuring-points have been preserved, two on the chest, two on the back, one on the right glutaeus and on the left thigh. These must also have been calculated by means of the plumb-line, but not by the same method used for the statue from Rheneia, where the sculptor measured from a boss over the head and from this point worked out his depths. The accom54

4 0 . HEAD OF A N OLD W O M A N , FROM THE WESTERN PEDIMENT OF THE TEMPLE AT O L Y M P I A

panying diagram will make it somewhat easier to understand the method followed (42). A square frame divided into sections marked 1 to 1 1 is suspended above the model. The frame is grooved at each number and the sculptor can therefore transfer the plumb-line, which is made fast to the centre of the frame, from one number to any other and let it fall as he 55

requires in order to calculate his depth. He must obviously suspend the same frame and plumb-line over the block of stone of which he intends to carve his statue. The sculptor who carved the little unfinished torso must have worked out his points by means of a frame of this kind, or a simpler version of it, such as a plain board to which he tied his plumb-line. By placing several points perpendicularly above one another he spared himself unnecessary labour, for he could work out the position of various points with the same line. The main purpose of this measuring was to enable the sculptor to translate his model into stone as accurately as possible, particularly when he was dealing with complicated figures. The Olympia sculptures were like all 4 1 . MALE TORSO, FROM ATHENS archaic sculptures in that the artist, working layer by layer, punched them gradually out of the stone. The plumb-line helped him to find his way. He could control the relationship between the various differing planes, and, above all, measure out the depth to which he must penetrate in particularly important places. The subsequent improvement of this method of calculating in the Roman period, however, led to the abandonment of the earlier process which, despite its artistic worth, was clumsy. The sculptor transferred several principal points of reference from his model on to the stone, as in the case of the little torso from Athens, and then, instead of carving his figure gradually in layers out of the block, he took a heavy chisel or mallet and struck away the first fifty layers or so, until he had reached the depth established by his measurements. His real work as an artist began at this point, when he had only to remove a last, thin layer from his figure. 56

He did not usually use a punch for this stage, but a flat chisel. Since his measurements provided him with precise points of reference he could busy himself with clearly defined sections without being obliged to bear the whole figure in mind. The mental strain was much reduced, although the external precision was in no way affected. The artistic power of the performance, however, was seriously diminished. A n unfinished group in the National Museum in Athens, which represents the lad Dionysos accompanied by a youthful satyr (43), shows what were the results of this latter process. The piece is only 17 cm. high; it was found in Athens below the Acropolis by the wall surrounding the Olympieion.

4 2 . I L L U S T R A T I O N OF

The subject was an extremely popular one during

MEASURING

the Roman imperial period. It is often found as

WI

METHOD

H PLUMB_LINE

an independent group, but also as a decoration for supports of various kinds. The god holds his right arm bent over his head, his left is thrown across the shoulders of his companion, who is gazing up at him. Threequarters of both figures have been carved out of the marble from the front. The backs and arms of the satyr are still buried in the stone. The outlines of both youthful figures are sharply outlined in the remaining stone. The surfaces of the bodies, with regular traces of the flat chisel, are clearly differentiated from the rough parts of the stone. Various measuring-points

have been

accurately

placed,

in the god's hair, for example, on the shin, above both of his knees, and on the right side of the satyr's chest and also above his knees. The whole work is extremely neat and precise. One has the impression that the sculptor cannot go wrong, but the effect of the whole is academic and cold. The artist has become little more than a meticulous copier of his own model.

57

THE incontestable difference between original Greek works of the 5th century B.C. and the frequently arid classical copies of the Roman imperial period may best be proved by a comparison with several unfinished pieces of sculpture. The Museum on the island of Aegina possesses a torso (44 and 46) which was carved at the beginning of the 5th century B.C. and is therefore contemporary with the warriors from the pediments of the Temple of Aphaia, which are now in the Sculpture Gallery in Munich. It, too, may have been planned originally as a pediment sculpture. The only tool was a punch, as in the case of archaic sculptures, used to bring about a life-like movement in the various forms, which compose an harmonious whole as do the ripples on the surface of a lake. The spine and the outline of the shoulder-blades are indicated in an almost pictorial fashion through heavier strokes which intensify the depth of shadow in the punch-holes. They compose a kind of sketch of what the sculptor still intends to do, but do not tie him down at this stage to any fixed scheme. The sculptor in question sees his statue as a round, organic, whole figure, not as a front, a back, an upper or a lower part. A male torso, extremely similar in theme, which dates from the Roman imperial period, may be compared with the former work (45 and 47). This piece, carved by a copier, shows the front and back at different stages of completion, which is a clear indication that each was worked separately. In addition, traces of the most varied kind of chiselling may be found. The flat chisel was used preponderantly more than the punch. Finally, the single parts about the chest and body are sharply defined and contrasted, which implied that the sculptor had his hands tied, as far as movement was concerned, when he reached the final stage. In this sculptor's mind his statue consisted of a number of planes which he brought into line one with another. He no longer saw a rounded, indivisible body, as the Greek in the 5th century B.C. did. This is the essential, not the adoption of this or that chisel. But it is obvious that a sculptor who is thinking in terms of planes will be tempted to use a flat chisel as much as possible. A head and torso in the Acropolis Museum in Athens (48) is an especially instructive example of the technique of Roman copies. It was intended to be a reproduction of the famous statue of a youth unlacing his sandals. The original, a work dating from the 4th century B.C. from the 59

4 6 . MALE T O R S O , FROM AEGINA

4 7 . MALE T O R S O , FROM ATHENS

School o f Lysippus, was certainly a bronze, which, however, was frequently copied in marble in the imperial period. The copier was given the task of chiselling a statue which was based entirely upon roundness of form and variety of aspect. He could not divide it simply into a back and a front, as he did in the case of the torso of a youth. He lightened his task by means of numerous graphic sketches and covered the whole figure with them, like an anatomic study. All details were finally linked up and the whole carefully polished. The modelling in such a case is entirely superficial and is therefore of little interest. Nothing can conceal the fact that a copy of this nature did not grow slowly as an organism out of the stone. The sculptor was undeniably extremely able, a master in the art of handling stone. But speed was also important and this fact made it almost impossible for him to leave the beaten path of technique laid down by classical sculpture. The gap is just as great when we compare an unfinished head from the classical period with similar works some centuries later. A handsome female head in the Berlin Museum, contemporary with the Parthenon 62

\

t

4 9 . HEAD OF A W O M A N , FROM ATHENS

sculptures, which has unfortunately lost its forehead (49), was abandoned at the very stage when the artist was about to rub over the whole surface with emery and pumice-stone. There are clear traces of a fine point beneath the chin and the surface of the face is still rough, but indications of rubbing are everywhere apparent. There is no sign of a flat chisel or rasp. The smoothing of the surface was carried out in this case, as in almost all Greek pieces, with emery and pumice-stone rubbed over the fine pointwork. A female bust (50), dating from the first century B.C. and now in the National Museum in Athens, produces an entirely different impres64

5 0 . FEMALE B U S T , FROM T H E I S L A N D OF R H E N E I A

sion. It comes from the island of Rheneia and was apparently intended to decorate a tomb. The face and hand have been sketched out with broad, heavy strokes by a flat chisel; all the planes, especially about the eyes and nose, are sharply differentiated. Only the hair and drapery bear traces of the claw-chisel, the deep folds and the grooves between the fingers have been hollowed out with a running-drill. A youthful head (51), which was found by the Enneakrunos on the western slope of the Acropolis and is also in the National Museum in Athens, gives the same impression. The nose was broken off, the left cheek and the hair on the left side of the head have also been severely damaged. A square block of stone has apparently broken off above the middle of the forehead where the hair lies. Perhaps a 65

boss originally jutted out at this point. A deep groove for a band has been cut through the thick masses of hair. This piece has been irregularly and heavily carved, a fault due, probably, to the poor quality of the marble, which is inclined to flake off. The only signs of the punch are to be found in the hair, particularly at the back. Otherwise the whole head has been carved out with a sharp flat chisel and a bullnosed chisel in long strokes. The work had reached an advanced stage round the left eye, the surface is almost smoothed to a 5 1 . H E A D OF A Y O U T H , FROM A T H E N S

f i ^

X

h

e

c o a r s e

s t y

j

e

G

f

Work

makes it certain that this piece dates from the Roman imperial period. The difference between Greek punch-work followed by pumice-stone smoothing and the far more superficial flat-chisel modelling of later copies may be as easily recognised even in finished sculptures. This becomes evident if we compare two heads from the western pediment of the Temple of Zeus in Olympia. The youthful Lapith head (39) is a Greek original, worked with the punch and then smoothed through rubbing with a soft stone. Even the delicate planes of the eyelids and eyebrows possess a kind of soft elasticity and the whole face has the strong, organic form of a powerful, youthful nature. The head of an old woman (40) is a replacement made in the days of imperial Rome. The original crashed down from the pediment during an earthquake, or was struck by lightning and had to be replaced by a copy. The flat-chiselling in the old woman's face gives an unresilient, dull and lifeless impression. Minor details in form are often left sharp-edged in juxtaposition. The eyes are almost unbearably hard and sharp. This is true also of other heads of younger persons which were made at the same time. The differences between the splendid form of the original and the flat, sterile substitute leaps to the eye in comparing the two water-spouting lions' heads (52-53) 66

5 2 . W A T E R - S P O U T I N G LION FROM THE TEMPLE OF ZEUS AT O L Y M P I A

5 3 - W A T E R - S P O U T I N G LION F R O M THE TEMPLE OF ZEUS AT O L Y M P I A . R O M A N C O P Y FROM THE I M P E R I A L PERIOD

67

from the same Temple of Zeus in Olympia. The little Hall of achitecture in the Pergamon Museum exhibited one of these original heads from the 5th century B.C. together with a later copy in order to throw the contrast into sharper relief. The real significance of this method, by which a figure was gradually carved out of the stone layer after layer, a punch being the only tool used, is brought home to the full when we learn how long a Greek artist was engaged upon one of his statues. W e are able to prove, by the help of inscriptions, that he must have had a great deal of patience and must have worked hard over a long period in order to reach the ultimate stage of balance and finish. Part of the building-costs for the Erechtheion frieze on the Acropolis in Athens, which was made about the year 420 B.C., has survived and permits us to draw some precise conclusions in this matter. The figures of the frieze were worked singly, they are almost carved in the round and were placed upon the architrave of the Temple against a background of dark, Eleusinian stone, in front of the frieze-panels. The bill, in the form of an inscription, records these figures and groups individually, with their price. The sculptor was paid 120 drachmae for a youth writing and a man standing beside him. This sum did not include the preparation of the model. This group, which once upon a time cost 120 drachmae, has fortunately been preserved almost in its entirety (54). It was origin-

5 4 . GROUP OF T W O M E N , ONE S T A N D I N G A N D THE OTHER K N E E L I N G , FROM THE E R E C H T H E I O N F R I E Z E ON THE A C R O P O L I S OF A T H E N S

68

ally about 58 cm. (23 in.) high. Since the highest daily wage at this period was one drachma and even the architect responsible for the whole work did not receive more, the amount of labour put into this group must be calculated at 120 days or four months. Deductions for the cost of material cannot be made upon any account, because the marble was supplied and is mentioned in another part of the bill. Such a small piece of marble would have cost very little in Greece, in any case. But the sum of 120 drachmae probably corresponds to a far longer period of work than four months. W e know that not every assistant is mentioned by name in bills of this kind, but only the sculptors themselves, who had large studios where they employed many assistants. Certainly the apprentices will not have earned so much as a drachma per day, like the responsible architect, but far less, and therefore the sum of 120 drachmae, even if a profit for the sculptor is included, must have covered a far longer period than four months. Inscriptions of this nature can, on occasion, become a living reality for us. Whether a sculptor worked for ten or for sixty days at one figure in a frieze is by no means a matter of indifference. Behind such sums we can glimpse a method of estimating artistic worth which must have influenced the whole attitude to art. The same is true of the models which the Greek sculptor prepared for his work in the classical period. They corresponded in size to the same work in stone and were finished down to the smallest detail. Another bill of costs proves this; it was found in the Temple of Asklepios in Epidaurus. The sculptor Timotheus was paid 900 drachmae in the 4th century B.C. for his models of the pediment groups and his sketches for the Akroterien of the Temple, and since the wages of the builder responsible for the whole was one drachma per day the sum of 900 drachmae corresponds to a period of labour of nearly two years and a half. Timotheos did not take two years to complete the work, because he employed assistants. That is of no interest to us at the present moment. What matters is the amount of work included in the sum of 900 drachmae. He could not possibly have received a sum for two and a half years' work if he had only fashioned little, superficial models, rapidly executed.

69

UP TO this point we have discussed only ancient sculptures in the round. W e have now to establish some lines of connection with sculpture in relief, which in many respects follows its own rules. An accentuated highrelief is the only one which presents but slight differences when compared with sculpture in the round at the same period. One may take it for granted, for instance, that the metope from the Temple of Zeus in Olympia or from the Parthenon were subjected to the same technical treatment as the sculptures of the pediment. This is true also of Hellenistic high-relief, which corresponds almost identically in technique with the sculptures in the round. A great part of the Telephos frieze of the Pergamon was left unfinished; this is particularly suitable for a ^ j i ^ M ^ g g s ^ M ^ ^ ' ,