DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4376#0271
OP THE MATJSOI/EUM. 253
evidence, the historian of ancient literature is forced
to study fragments with the hope that, in the alem-
bic of a subtle criticism, he may distil from them
something like the spirit of the poem of which they
once formed a part, so, even from these poor shreds
and remnants of the works of Scopas and his
brethren, we may extract some notions as to the
characteristics of the school of sculpture which they
represent, and so contribute the materials for a new
chapter in the history of Greek Art.
In the foregoing description I have offered a few
critical remarks on the sculptures of the Mausoleum
in detail, pointing out certain differences which
showed them to be the work of more than one artist.
I shall now inquire how far, as the joint production
of several contemporary artists animated by the
same motive, they may be said to exhibit unity of
style, and in what this unity seems to consist.
To recognize in a number of contemporary monu-
ments the same style, is far easier than to define in
words a resemblance so recognized, and which,
indeed, we discover primarily through a kind of
feeling or instinct rather than by any conscious
logical process. In this, as in many other matters,
we must approach the definition sought for rather
through negative than positive statements ; we
must begin by pointing out what the style of these
sculptures is not like, in order that we may, if
possible, be able to express in words what it is like.
Those who are most deeply conversant with an-
cient art will, I think, bear me out in the assertion
that these sculptures, while they produce an im-
evidence, the historian of ancient literature is forced
to study fragments with the hope that, in the alem-
bic of a subtle criticism, he may distil from them
something like the spirit of the poem of which they
once formed a part, so, even from these poor shreds
and remnants of the works of Scopas and his
brethren, we may extract some notions as to the
characteristics of the school of sculpture which they
represent, and so contribute the materials for a new
chapter in the history of Greek Art.
In the foregoing description I have offered a few
critical remarks on the sculptures of the Mausoleum
in detail, pointing out certain differences which
showed them to be the work of more than one artist.
I shall now inquire how far, as the joint production
of several contemporary artists animated by the
same motive, they may be said to exhibit unity of
style, and in what this unity seems to consist.
To recognize in a number of contemporary monu-
ments the same style, is far easier than to define in
words a resemblance so recognized, and which,
indeed, we discover primarily through a kind of
feeling or instinct rather than by any conscious
logical process. In this, as in many other matters,
we must approach the definition sought for rather
through negative than positive statements ; we
must begin by pointing out what the style of these
sculptures is not like, in order that we may, if
possible, be able to express in words what it is like.
Those who are most deeply conversant with an-
cient art will, I think, bear me out in the assertion
that these sculptures, while they produce an im-