DOI article:
Essay I: The provice, aim, and methos of the stuy of classical archaeology
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.11444#0051
I.]
THE STUDY OF CLASSICAL ARCHAEOLOGY.
31
more is it the case with works of art where the form is at the
same time the essence, where the anatomy is at the same time
the physiology, the psychology, and sometimes also — the
pathology.
Inasmuch as the artist cannot, even if he would, reproduce
every detail of things in nature, he must choose, select, accentuate
or omit in what he is representing. The units or parts of his
work are borrowed from nature, but the choice at least comes from
himself, is his own, and this will be modified by the quality of
the material he uses, such as wood, clay, stone, bronze, by his
national and historical character, his individual nature, and his
artistic tact. This we call the style of a school or of an artist.
This style differs most distinctly in the various schools of Greek
art and in the individual artists. The duty of the archaeologist
is above all things to make a careful comparative study of the
various styles, and to arrange the monuments which have not
yet been identified, in accordance with these laws of form, so
as to constitute a morphology of Greek art.
The first thing to be done is to codify the identified monu-
ments which are representative of the work of the various schools
and masters. The number of these monuments is at present not
inconsiderable, and is growing with every new excavation that is
made. These monuments must be carefully studied and com-
pared in their form and the character of their work, and their
distinctive features must be enumerated.
To discover the general style of a school or an artist we must
bear in mind the difference between the forms that are essential
and those that are accidental, between the forms in which the
biologist recognises marks of heredity and those in which he
sees only adaptation. The general style will be ascertained if we
subtract what is accidental from the whole number of its features.
To take a definite instance : if we wish to ascertain the style
of Pheidias from the Elgin marbles, we must first consider the
general character of these works and all the special features of
the modelling and the technique. But then we must further
bear in mind that it is only in the temple-statues that the pure
style of Pheidias comes out, while the Elgin marbles were
merely designed by him and executed by others; furthermore,
that we only have the pedimental figures and the frieze of the
THE STUDY OF CLASSICAL ARCHAEOLOGY.
31
more is it the case with works of art where the form is at the
same time the essence, where the anatomy is at the same time
the physiology, the psychology, and sometimes also — the
pathology.
Inasmuch as the artist cannot, even if he would, reproduce
every detail of things in nature, he must choose, select, accentuate
or omit in what he is representing. The units or parts of his
work are borrowed from nature, but the choice at least comes from
himself, is his own, and this will be modified by the quality of
the material he uses, such as wood, clay, stone, bronze, by his
national and historical character, his individual nature, and his
artistic tact. This we call the style of a school or of an artist.
This style differs most distinctly in the various schools of Greek
art and in the individual artists. The duty of the archaeologist
is above all things to make a careful comparative study of the
various styles, and to arrange the monuments which have not
yet been identified, in accordance with these laws of form, so
as to constitute a morphology of Greek art.
The first thing to be done is to codify the identified monu-
ments which are representative of the work of the various schools
and masters. The number of these monuments is at present not
inconsiderable, and is growing with every new excavation that is
made. These monuments must be carefully studied and com-
pared in their form and the character of their work, and their
distinctive features must be enumerated.
To discover the general style of a school or an artist we must
bear in mind the difference between the forms that are essential
and those that are accidental, between the forms in which the
biologist recognises marks of heredity and those in which he
sees only adaptation. The general style will be ascertained if we
subtract what is accidental from the whole number of its features.
To take a definite instance : if we wish to ascertain the style
of Pheidias from the Elgin marbles, we must first consider the
general character of these works and all the special features of
the modelling and the technique. But then we must further
bear in mind that it is only in the temple-statues that the pure
style of Pheidias comes out, while the Elgin marbles were
merely designed by him and executed by others; furthermore,
that we only have the pedimental figures and the frieze of the