DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.5253#0642
SUFFERING IN THE FIGURE OF LAOCOON. 605
correspondingly great. No consciousness of their distress is evident either in
his face or form, in which pain, terrible and blinding, seems to have smothered
every other feeling. This' we see in the aimless movements of his legs, the
agony of the cramped toes, the terrible contraction and writhing of the loins,
the blind grasping at the serpent's neck with the left hand, and the tortured
expression of the face. Fully to feel all the physical pain here brought out,
we must study the group by torchlight, when, as may be done with a cast, the
fine grades of muscular action in form and face come to fuller expression. In
vain do we look here for an heroic struggling with destiny, such as Lessing
imagined in the scene. Especially when compared with the glorious groups of
the Pergamon altar frieze, do we see how completely and exclusively bare phy-
sical pain is here emphasized, and that becomes so pitiable, that the truly tragic,
always having something ennobling about it, is excluded. With the sculptor
Dannecker, our eye gladly seeks relief in some other object. The only amelio-
rating chord in this dirge of agony is the sympathetic look of the elder son up
to his father, and the hope we may have for his possible escape. For, in har-
mony with the older Greek version of the myth, and following the judgment of
Goethe, Stark, and Brunn on this sufferer, we would gladly believe that he will
be delivered."86 His glance of sorrowful sympathy, up to his tortured father,
seems to indicate that he does not fear the utmost for himself; and his very
slight entanglement in the coils gives us additional hope that he will escape.
The obtrusive presence of the snakes in this composition, so very different
from their subordinate treatment in the Pergamon frieze, where human forms
<>f supreme beauty are dominant, further illustrates the difference in the two
works. It is only when we study the skilful anatomy, the pyramidal grouping,
and masterly technique of the Laocoon trio, that we are in some degree recon-
ciled to the revolting scene. But even here there is something decidedly arti-
ficial in the arrangement of the figures spread out before us, which seem more
like very high relief, akin to that of the Pergamon frieze, than like statuary.
This artificiality appears also in the superficial knotting-together of the figures
by bulky coils, in the mannerism of the fall of the drapery, and in the careful
freeing of all the chests from the distressing coils, as though to afford oppor-
tunity for a display of anatomical skill. We almost feel the difficulty the
artists must have had in arriving at a satisfactory grouping. In fact, many
archaeologists have explained Pliny's expression, de coiisilii saitcntia, as refer-
ring to the consultations of the artists in producing the group. Others explain
the expression as an order given by Titus for the execution of the work, and
therefore assign it to Roman times. A most natural explanation is suggested
by Mr. Murray, who, judging from the analogy of Rhodian inscriptions, believes
the order to have been made by Rhodian magistrates.IlS7 The opponents
of the view that this is a work of the Roman time claim, with great reason, that
the general superiority of the group to all known Roman works, its well-known
correspondingly great. No consciousness of their distress is evident either in
his face or form, in which pain, terrible and blinding, seems to have smothered
every other feeling. This' we see in the aimless movements of his legs, the
agony of the cramped toes, the terrible contraction and writhing of the loins,
the blind grasping at the serpent's neck with the left hand, and the tortured
expression of the face. Fully to feel all the physical pain here brought out,
we must study the group by torchlight, when, as may be done with a cast, the
fine grades of muscular action in form and face come to fuller expression. In
vain do we look here for an heroic struggling with destiny, such as Lessing
imagined in the scene. Especially when compared with the glorious groups of
the Pergamon altar frieze, do we see how completely and exclusively bare phy-
sical pain is here emphasized, and that becomes so pitiable, that the truly tragic,
always having something ennobling about it, is excluded. With the sculptor
Dannecker, our eye gladly seeks relief in some other object. The only amelio-
rating chord in this dirge of agony is the sympathetic look of the elder son up
to his father, and the hope we may have for his possible escape. For, in har-
mony with the older Greek version of the myth, and following the judgment of
Goethe, Stark, and Brunn on this sufferer, we would gladly believe that he will
be delivered."86 His glance of sorrowful sympathy, up to his tortured father,
seems to indicate that he does not fear the utmost for himself; and his very
slight entanglement in the coils gives us additional hope that he will escape.
The obtrusive presence of the snakes in this composition, so very different
from their subordinate treatment in the Pergamon frieze, where human forms
<>f supreme beauty are dominant, further illustrates the difference in the two
works. It is only when we study the skilful anatomy, the pyramidal grouping,
and masterly technique of the Laocoon trio, that we are in some degree recon-
ciled to the revolting scene. But even here there is something decidedly arti-
ficial in the arrangement of the figures spread out before us, which seem more
like very high relief, akin to that of the Pergamon frieze, than like statuary.
This artificiality appears also in the superficial knotting-together of the figures
by bulky coils, in the mannerism of the fall of the drapery, and in the careful
freeing of all the chests from the distressing coils, as though to afford oppor-
tunity for a display of anatomical skill. We almost feel the difficulty the
artists must have had in arriving at a satisfactory grouping. In fact, many
archaeologists have explained Pliny's expression, de coiisilii saitcntia, as refer-
ring to the consultations of the artists in producing the group. Others explain
the expression as an order given by Titus for the execution of the work, and
therefore assign it to Roman times. A most natural explanation is suggested
by Mr. Murray, who, judging from the analogy of Rhodian inscriptions, believes
the order to have been made by Rhodian magistrates.IlS7 The opponents
of the view that this is a work of the Roman time claim, with great reason, that
the general superiority of the group to all known Roman works, its well-known