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#0053
l] the study of classical archaeology. 33
If we wish then to obtain the general style of Pheidias from
the Iris of the pediment, we must subtract from all the attri-
butes of the work those that are due to its being (i) a pedimental
figure, and (2) a flying figure, and what remains will be essential
to his style.
But sometimes what is to be discovered is the meaning and
not the style of the figure, and then of course any attributes or
outer marks, such as a sceptre, a thunder-bolt, a caduceus, a
wreath, may be of the greatest value; but even here the study
of the style may be of immediate use. In such a case, if we
know the style, we must subtract it from the general appear-
ance, and the idiosyncrasies that remain may help the unpre-
judiced observer to a correct interpretation. Thus, if after
enumerating the characteristics of the flying figure from the
Eastern pediment of the Parthenon, we subtract from them
those features of character and style that are common to all the
extant figures by Pheidias, the remaining peculiarities will be
those indicative of rapid motion, and these will aid us in
discovering that this figure represents Iris, the fleet messenger
of the gods.
When an archaeological investigator meets with an unknown
monument, his course in attempting to identify the monument
will have to be, in the first place, carefully to study the style, to
weigh all its characteristics, both the spiritual character of the
work and the peculiar handling of the material, for instance, the
way of indicating the texture of the skin, and muscles, whether
the forms are full and round, or scanty and rigid, the peculiar
modelling of the hair (for in this no two schools of sculpture
are alike), and especially the treatment of the drapery. The
hasty observer of sculpture hardly knows how much forethought
and how much choice there is for the artist in indicating his
drapery. In dealing with this the individual habits of the artist
come out most pronouncedly. Folds may in reality fall in any
conceivable manner, but still there are only certain definite kinds
of folds that will please the eye of the spectator or suit the cha-
racter of a particular work. Every original artist searches for a
long while before he can find a method of indicating this pleasing
fall of drapery, and gradually there is formed in him, more or
less consciously, a method of attaining this result. This then
W. 3
If we wish then to obtain the general style of Pheidias from
the Iris of the pediment, we must subtract from all the attri-
butes of the work those that are due to its being (i) a pedimental
figure, and (2) a flying figure, and what remains will be essential
to his style.
But sometimes what is to be discovered is the meaning and
not the style of the figure, and then of course any attributes or
outer marks, such as a sceptre, a thunder-bolt, a caduceus, a
wreath, may be of the greatest value; but even here the study
of the style may be of immediate use. In such a case, if we
know the style, we must subtract it from the general appear-
ance, and the idiosyncrasies that remain may help the unpre-
judiced observer to a correct interpretation. Thus, if after
enumerating the characteristics of the flying figure from the
Eastern pediment of the Parthenon, we subtract from them
those features of character and style that are common to all the
extant figures by Pheidias, the remaining peculiarities will be
those indicative of rapid motion, and these will aid us in
discovering that this figure represents Iris, the fleet messenger
of the gods.
When an archaeological investigator meets with an unknown
monument, his course in attempting to identify the monument
will have to be, in the first place, carefully to study the style, to
weigh all its characteristics, both the spiritual character of the
work and the peculiar handling of the material, for instance, the
way of indicating the texture of the skin, and muscles, whether
the forms are full and round, or scanty and rigid, the peculiar
modelling of the hair (for in this no two schools of sculpture
are alike), and especially the treatment of the drapery. The
hasty observer of sculpture hardly knows how much forethought
and how much choice there is for the artist in indicating his
drapery. In dealing with this the individual habits of the artist
come out most pronouncedly. Folds may in reality fall in any
conceivable manner, but still there are only certain definite kinds
of folds that will please the eye of the spectator or suit the cha-
racter of a particular work. Every original artist searches for a
long while before he can find a method of indicating this pleasing
fall of drapery, and gradually there is formed in him, more or
less consciously, a method of attaining this result. This then
W. 3