MURRAY'S "HISTORY OF GREEK SCULPTURE."* THAT this work, so well
known to all students of ancient art, should have waited ten years for a, second edition, is a proof that it is not known as it deserves to be to the general reader. But, at any rate, the reissue is well timed, for the intervening years have been singularly fruitful of archaeological discovery, especially in the department of early sculpture. Indeed, archeology of late has become unduly absorbed in the study of primitive culture, so that the pre-historic pottery from Hellenic soil, and even the hideous little stone idols from the Zgean Islands, have diverted attention from the masterpieces of the best time. Accordingly, Dr. Murray has not thought it necessary to make any change in his second volume, whereas the first volume, which treats of the times before Pheidias, has grown, in spite of some compression and much recasting, from 294 pp. to 325. A prominent place is deservedly given to the archaic reliefs and statues from the Acropolis and from Delos, which are characterised at some length. The only fault we find in the author's treatment of them, is in the way they are figured : only three of these illustrations give an idea of the beauty of these old works,—viz., the fine bronze head on p. 167, and the calf-bearing Hermes and the Aristion- stele on pp. 165, 139, which two last have happily superseded the woodcuts of the first edition. Nor is the woodcut on p. 144 worthy of the remarkable bronze Athena, which was first figured in 'Epitaopic ' Apxoraovoth of 1887 (pl. 4).
We wish the author had seen his way to expanding his first volume still further. It would have been interesting to have his opinion of the curious examples of ancient pedimental
• A Hi8toni of Greek Saartnre. By A. B. Hurray, LL,D,, F.S.A. 2 volo. novieed odition. London; John Hurray, 1520,
sculpture in pores-stone recently found in the Acropolis. His study of early Attic vase-painting would enable him to.
say many things worth hearing upon the general style and development of pre-Pheidian Attic art. On these and many other points we shall look forward to future writings from his pen, and we shall devote our remaining space to the statement of three several features in the present work which appear to us to commend it to the general English reader.
In the first place, it is a work full of wide and accurate learning. The writer is master at once of his subject, and of the literature of his subject,—two things often confused, but widely different, especially when works of art form the theme. The fragmentary state of our evidence compels classical archwology to be much occupied with theories and discussions. Nothing of importance in this way is omitted; the footnotes are a mine of valuable references. And if the author shows • commendable caution in balancing evidence, it is not for lack of knowledge nor of independent judgment. Instances of what we mean will be found where he discusses the identifica- tion of the deities of the Parthenon sculptures, the attribu- tion of the Temple of "Theseus," the share of Pwonios in the. pediments and metopes of Olympia, or the career and fate of Pheidias. Or take another topic of perpetual 'and unabating discussion,—the restoration of the Venus of Milo. In the note on p. 276 of Vol. IL, which stands unaltered since 1883, will be found so compact a statement of the literature and, of the divergent views on this never-ending theme, that it is not out of date to-day. If some of the original suggestions which' the author broached in his first edition sound less original now, it is because they have met with general accep- tance. Such are the ingenious application of a theory of perspective to explain the grouping of the -gods on the Parthenon frieze ; 'or the explanation of the "heraldic " arrangement of figures (such as the lions of Mycenco) as growing out of the early artist's desire to show us both sides of one figure; or the suggestion that "the original idea of long narrow strips of bas-relief, such as are associated chiefly with the friezes of Greek temples, grew out of the [Assyrian] system of covering and ornamenting walls with plates of copper." The work teems with remarks of this kind.
The second claim of the book is its special suitableness to the English student. Its well-known studies of the Shield of Achilles and of the Chest of Cypselus place the English reader at no disadvantage, since the restorations rest ultimately upon literary evidence. A new restoration has been added, that of the Apollo at Amyche (p. 90) ; this, by-the-way, would please us better if the bust of the god had been made more decidedly archaic. But the author throws his main strength into the criticism of original works which we can all study for ourselves,—e.g., the Harpy-tomb, the Parthenon sculptures, the Nereid monument, the frieze of Phigaleia and of the Mausoleum. All these, and much more, are accessible to. every one in our national museum. Dr. Murray knows them all through and through. Not one element in their history or in their beauty escapes him, and his criticisms, the fruit of ripe experience and sympathetic study, seem perpetually opening our eyes to understand the originals anew. For, indeed, it is not the treatise, nor the photograph, nor even the museum of casts, that helps us adequately to the study of sculpture. 'What a poor, dead makeshift is the cast ! It has no texture, its opaque surface admits no light, it throws a different shadow from that of an ancient marble. We are therefore grateful to the author for sending us BO directly to originals. It is noteworthy that many of his new illustrations (mostly admirable ones) are from the ever-growing stores of the Museum. Such are the archaic lion on p. 61, the bust from Polledrara (p. 85), the reliefs from Sardes (p. 107), and, above all, the restored cblumn from, the old temple of Ephesus (p. 110), which bears the name of its royal dedicator, Crcesne.
Thirdly, the style of the author is worthy of his subject ; it is dignified, but genial. He wisely eschews the gush of the art-critic and the jargon of the studio. But we feel sensible on every page of his intense enjoyment of his subject, and his enjoyment is contagious,—all the more so because of his sober self-restraint. Take, as a single sample, his description
of the beautiful head of Hera from Agrigentum (I., p. 308) :—
"To begin with the Hera of the British Museum (Fig. 65), it must be explained that this head has suffered considerably, first, from a polishing-down of the lips, which have not only lost their finer and necessary lines, but now appear almost to gape ; and, secondly, from a cutting-down of her crown (stephanos) at both sides, which destroys the comparison of the head with the coins, if it does not materially injure the effect. This reduction of the
• crown, and especially the want of ornament on it, tend to .exaggerate the demureness of the expression, while the de- . struction of the lips gives a heaviness to the lower pert of the face at variance with her character as a bride. It may be also that something of the matronly type was imported into the face by the ancient copyist. Yet -when seen in three-quarter view, where the injuries and defects are less appreciable, the face has a charm of natural beauty, not free and rejoicing in its own loveliness, but controlled by a fascinating reserve ; in fact, uniting the more than mortal grace of Polykleitos with his unrivalled power of deducing a characteristic type from elaborate observation and thought, tending always in the direction of reserve in expression."
We bad intended to grumble at some of the old woodcuts which yet remain, especially the Europa on p. 248 of 'Vol. I., and the abject Aphrodite which blots the last page of Vol. We had noted that Hoplitodromos means the runner and not the race ; that Hilatera should be Hilaeira ; and that " trans- pire " and "thereafter" are not good English for " happen " and "afterwards." But these slight blemishes do not detract from the value and charm of a book which will delight all students of Greek art for many a year to come.
Previous page
