Bröndsted, Peter Oluf: The bronzes of Siris: now in the British Museum (London, 1836)

ADDITIONAL NOTES.

Note I. See page 6.

In Homer we not only read of arms which are dpyvpor]\<i and with " //Aoi %p<6<reioi"
(decked with gold and silver rivets) for example II. II. 45 ; III. 334 ; XIV. 405 ; XIX.
372 ; XXIII. 807 ; and II. XI. 29-30 where a V^oq, or glaive, is spoken of . . sp di ol
tjXoi xpvaeioi Tra/Kpaivop ; but the same embellishment is given also to other objects. Thus
the goblet (deirag) of Nestor (II. XI. 632) is ^pvadoiQ ijXoiaL Trsirapfievov. A seat {Sqovoq)
in the palace of Alcinoos is also dpyvQorjKoQ, Od. VII. 162, and VIII. 65 ; and Ulysses says
of the abode of Circe, Od. X. 366 :—

siae Si /.isla-ayayovcra ett\ Spovov apyvpoi'iKov,

KaXov, daiSdXiov, k. r. X.

Note II. See page 7.

If we sometimes see in very remarkable works of Grecian sculpture, that the heads
are treated either in a manner altogether conventional, and are thus left without individual
expression, as is the case in the statues (now in Munich) from the pediments of the temple
of ./Egina ; or that, notwithstanding all the vivacity and variety of the composition, there
are still in the heads an indifference, and a sort of frigidity, which we observe in some
of the Phigaleian bas-reliefs (now in the British Museum) from the temple of Apollo Epi-
curios at Bassas, this fact, which appears so inconsistent with the excellence of these works
in other respects, arises from several causes, which ought to be noticed, if we wish to avoid
coming to false conclusions.

With respect to the heads of the figures of the temple of ^Egina, we must not forget

that before the time of Phidias, in the most ancient schools of Greek Art, there prevailed

not only an antique usage or a traditional manner in art, but also a religious restraint.

The artist could scarcely escape from this double influence, so long as the principle of the

ideal, or, what amounts to the same thing, that of beauty as the supreme law of Art, was

neither recognized, nor in possession of its rights. But to establish this principle, as the

supreme rule of art, is a great revolution, which could not take place in the earlier times,

anterior to the fifth century before our aera, whilst the fine arts in Greece were, if not

exclusively, at least chiefly subordinate to religious purposes and necessities. Restrained and

limited by all that was exacted of them, in regard to religion, traditional types, and the

superstition of the times, the artists who were employed on the temple of yEgina, and by

whom the figures of the pediments were made, were bound to pursue a much more rigorous

method, than Phidias and his school were at liberty to adopt in Athens, at a period much

more liberal, and less enslaved by prejudices, and when they were backed by the power of

Pericles. Who knows whether certain archaic figures of painted wood, of a more ancient

temple of iEgina, did not religiously serve as models for the authors of the statues

of this more modern and spacious edifice ? Onatas of iEgina, when he made for the Phi-

galeians the new bronze statue of their local deity the Black Demeter, was obliged to follow

a design, or a copy, of the old figure which had been carved in wood (Paus. Book VIII.

ch. 42, § 4). This part of the history of Greek art deserves a fuller consideration than

the present occasion will allow of. In reference to the revolution, which Phidias and his

school operated in art, it is important to observe, that as the most distinguished man, as

well as every other human being, is the product of his own time and his own age, it

would have been impossible, even for a Phidias, to establish the principle of the ideal, and

M