DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.14144#0186
HISTORY OF ARTISTS.
CHAPTER XIII.
HISTORY OF ARTISTS.
Pythagoras, Myron, Calamis.
ALTHOUGH the archaistic imitations which formed the subject of the
last chapter assist us materially in gaining an acquaintance with the
general features and the more striking criteria of the archaic style, they
do not help us to write the history of the development of Greek art. If
it were not for the discovery of the iiiginetan marbles, we should have
no conception of the manner of such artists as Canachus, Callon, Onatas
and Ageladas. The ancient writers, who speak of them with praise,
give no such description of their style as would enable us to form a
clear conception of its character. Non constat sibi in hoc parte Grce-
corutn diligentia, as Pliny remarks in regard to the early history of
painting. When we pass, in our review of the works of Greek art
which time has spared, from the ^Eginetan group to the marbles of the
Parthenon, we seem to attain to the summit of perfection by a sudden
leap, and not, as usual, by toiling up a long and gradual ascent. A closer
consideration, however, will convince us that the two groups are not
separated from one another by so very deep a chasm after all.
In the history of art, as in other histories, every great prophet has
his forerunner, and every king his herald. When we consider the
qualities which go to form a great sculptor—the genius, the knowledge,
the labour, and the technical skill—we shall convince ourselves that even
Pheidias did not spring suddenly in full armour from the head of Jove,
but was slowly and naturally formed in the womb of time.
The most important change in the position and prospects of the
CHAPTER XIII.
HISTORY OF ARTISTS.
Pythagoras, Myron, Calamis.
ALTHOUGH the archaistic imitations which formed the subject of the
last chapter assist us materially in gaining an acquaintance with the
general features and the more striking criteria of the archaic style, they
do not help us to write the history of the development of Greek art. If
it were not for the discovery of the iiiginetan marbles, we should have
no conception of the manner of such artists as Canachus, Callon, Onatas
and Ageladas. The ancient writers, who speak of them with praise,
give no such description of their style as would enable us to form a
clear conception of its character. Non constat sibi in hoc parte Grce-
corutn diligentia, as Pliny remarks in regard to the early history of
painting. When we pass, in our review of the works of Greek art
which time has spared, from the ^Eginetan group to the marbles of the
Parthenon, we seem to attain to the summit of perfection by a sudden
leap, and not, as usual, by toiling up a long and gradual ascent. A closer
consideration, however, will convince us that the two groups are not
separated from one another by so very deep a chasm after all.
In the history of art, as in other histories, every great prophet has
his forerunner, and every king his herald. When we consider the
qualities which go to form a great sculptor—the genius, the knowledge,
the labour, and the technical skill—we shall convince ourselves that even
Pheidias did not spring suddenly in full armour from the head of Jove,
but was slowly and naturally formed in the womb of time.
The most important change in the position and prospects of the