Percy Gardner.

A grammar of Greek art online

. (page 4 of 18)
Online LibraryPercy GardnerA grammar of Greek art → online text (page 4 of 18)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

adapted to bridging over the gap between the upward straining
of the column and the solid, horizontal cornice, which in its
turn is a basis on which is supported, in the Doric order, by
means of triglyphs, the mass of the roof.

The decoration of the members of a temple is exactly in
inverse proportion to their usefulness structurally. The shafts
of the pillars are merely fluted, but at the capitals, where there
is, at least to the eye, a pause in the strain, we have simple
decoration, in the case of Ionic buildings, while in the Dorian
a more strictly utilitarian principle prevails. The lines of the
architrave also are gently emphasized by courses of simple
decoration, such as the egg and tongue moulding. Only in the
parts of the building which have, or seem to have, no structural
function at all — the pediments, the metopes inserted between


the supporting triglyphs, the top of the walls — do we find a
free hand given to the sculptor to compose groups in higli or
low relief. In the most otiose part of the whole structure, the
pediment, we sometimes find figures in the round. But even
where the hand of the sculptor is freest, he never thinks of
following the laws of his own art without regard to the purposes
of the building which he is decorating. On the contrary, he
makes his comj^ositions, both in line and in colouring, suitable
to the structure. He works in high relief in the metopes, which
are deeply recessed, in low relief in the frieze, which adorns
a flat surface. He cultivates extreme simplicity, avoids the
crossing of lines and of shadows, fills his space in such a way
that there are no blank spaces. In speaking of sculpture we
shall return to this subject.

AVhen we examine in detail even the simplest architectural
decoration, Ave discover a similar combination of care, sense of
proportion, and reason. The flutings of an Ionic column are not
in section mere arcs of a circle, but made up of a combination
of curves which produce a beautiful optical effect; the lines of
decoration, as may be best seen in the case of the Erechtheum,
are cut with a marvellous delicacy. Instead of trying to in-
vent new schemes, the mason contents himself with improving
the regular patterns until they approach perfection, and he
takes everything into consideration. Mouldings on the outside
of a temple, in the full light of the sun, are differently planned
from those in the diffused light of the interior. ]\rouldings
executed in soft stone are far less fine than those in marble.
The mason thinks before he works, and while he works, and
thinks in entire correspondence with his surroundings.

No doubt all the parts of the temple may be considered from
the other point of view, in the light of origin and development.


rather than ia that of reason and idea. In regard to origins,
the most striking fact is the double derivation of the temple
and the marked difference in type between the Doric and the
Ionic varieties. Both show a great influence of w^ooden con-
struction; but while the Doric belongs to Greece proper and
seems to continue the line of Mycenaean structure, the Ionic
was developed on the coast of Asia Elinor. The Corinthian
style was but a variety of the Ionic, late in use, but going back
to a not late type, perhaps originating, as M. Choisy thinks, in
columns adorned at the top with metal decoration. Vitruvius
speaks of the Doric style, with its massive simplicity, as essen-
tially male, and of the slimmer and more highly decorated
Ionic as in character female. M. Choisy has acutely traced
many of the peculiarities of Ionic architecture to the small-
ness of the wooden beams used in its early efforts, whereas the
Dorians, dwelling in a better wooded country, used from the
first more massive beams. Another characteristic difference
between the styles is that the Dorian architect was content with
painted bands of decoration, the Ionian architect, more orna-
ment-loving and luxurious, worked out the lines of decoration
in relief.

Side by side, with only a moderate amount of iuteraction, the
two styles develop. And so regular and uniform is their
development, that with the help of a few temples of known
date to serve as fixed points, it is possible to tell the period of
a Doric or an Ionic temple within no wide limits. When tem-
ples are repaired, the repairs, as in the case of English cathe-
drals, are in the style of the time in which they took place.

We may observe how the Doric capital not only marks a
transition from upright lines to horizontal, but also preserves
the form of the wooden capital in the Mycenaean palace ; how
the triglyphs are descended from upright beams, and the
metopes which they separate were originally open windows.



We may trace the gable form of the roof to wooden construc-
tion, as opposed to the flat roof of clay which is still common
in western Asia. No one, of course, would suppose that reason
and idea can And expression in a building, save by using exist-
ing materials of construction or adapting recognized ways of
building to new materials. Slowly, age by age, the idea more
fully penetrates the material, and uses it more freely to express
itself. And in some particulars reason seems never to have
fully mastered the material. For example, in regard to the
lighting of the temple, we are at present unable to see how it was
satisfactorily accomplished. The Greeks rejected the system
of lighting by leaving spaces between the triglyphs, which
seems the natural plan. They rejected, in the opinion of the
best judges, the system of hypaethral lighting by leaving an
open space in the midst of the roof. Whether they thought
that the light which came in at the open door was sufficient,
whether they had some system of basilican lighting, or whether
they admitted light through semi-transparent roofing slabs of
marble, is at present doubtful.

In the colouring of their temples the Greeks undoubtedly
used paint which we should call glaring, and tolerated juxta-
positions which would offend our eyes. Their principle, indeed,
was not to colour large surfaces with an even wash of paint,
but to pick out in colour borders and small members of archi-
tecture, as well as spaces which served as a background to
sculpture. But even allowing for this, we should call their
colouring harsh.^ It would seem that the modern eye is as
much more sensitive than the Greek in the matter of colour
as the Greek eye was more sensitive than the modern in mat-
ters of form. But we must remember that races used to a

1 See Baumeister's Denkmaler, art. " Polyehromie," or the plates at the end
of the second vohime of Olympia. The terra-cotta decoration of temples has
preserved its colours, but the painting of stone and marble now exists only in
the shape of vestiges.


bright sun and a clear light can endure far more vivid colour-
ing than peoples who dwell amid comparative darkness. And
the Greek senses, though keen, were fresher and less wearied
than ours. Even now peoples who live simply in the presence
of nature have not the same love as the educated for half-
tones and gentle transitions. Nor, in fact, has nature.

M. Boutmy has well pointed out that, in architecture, as in
other fields of activity, the Greeks had the defects of their
qualities. Their forte was fine sense and straight reasoning ;
but these qualities often passed into the excess of delight in
merely perfect technique and a desire to reduce everything to
logical schemes. We see the working of the last-named ten-
dency in the rigid classification of temples by the orders of
Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian. In earlier temples, such as those
at Paestum and Agrigentum, the architect has a freer hand.
But as time went on, rule became stricter. The three styles
are properly styles of pillars ; but the Greeks could not resist
the tendency to reduce all architecture, so to speak, to the key
of the kind of pillar used. Thus it comes about that in the
great age it is possible, if one has, in addition to the ground
plan of a temple, a few small fragments of its architecture, to
restore the whole, within narrow limits, with certainty. One
sees how this excess of schematism and regularity must have
strangled all vigour and originality of design.

The essentially rational character of Greek architecture is
best seen in the Parthenon, its most typical example. It was
first fully shown by Mr. Penrose, and has since become matter
of general knowledge, that though, when regarded at a little dis-
tance, the Parthenon appears to be a regular structure bounded
everywhere by straight lines, " I'ideal crystallise en marbre
Pentelique," as Renan said, yet when one closely examines it,
one finds that nothing in it is precisely regular* that the pil-
lars are not equidistant, the metopes not of the same size, and




so forth. One finds that tlie lines of the basis are not straight,
but curved, that the pillars are in some cases not upright, but
sloping, that they do not taper regularly, and the like. The
whole building is constructed, so to speak, on a subjective
rather than an objective basis ; it is intended not to be niathe-
matically accurate, but to be ada])ted to the eye of a spectator.

Fig. 2. — Sloping Hues of basis of Fartheuon.i

To the eye a curve is a more pleasing form than a straight
line, and the deviations from rigid correctness serve to give
a character of purpose, almost of life, to the solid marble

The details of these optical corrections are given in so many
books ^ that it is unnecessary to repeat them here.

1 From E. A. Gardner's Ancient Athens, p. 272.

2 For example, Smith's Dictionary of Antiquities : " Templum," p. 780
(Middleton) ; E. A. Gardner's, Ancient Athens, p. 270, etc.


An American archaeologist, Mr. Goodyear, has argued that
similar optical corrections are to be traced in St. Sophia at
Constantinople, St. Mark's at Venice, Notre Dame at Paris,
and many other of the greatest of mediaeval buildings. Mr.
Goodyear is disposed to think that there Avas a continuous
tradition downward from classical times; but it is perhaps
safer to see the working of a similar spirit in great ancient
and mediaeval buildings, before the objective spirit of modern
science dominated architecture, and the purposes aimed at in
buildings became more clearly conscious. This manner in
construction may be not unfairly compared to the rhetorical
manner which prevails in Greek literature, in history and
j)hilosophy as well as in oratory and poetry, and which also
was one of the bequests of the ancient to the mediaeval world.
The Greek artist, like the Greek writer, aimed not at rigid
adherence to the truth, but at producing a certain effect on
human beings. This is at once his weakness and his strength.
It is his weakness when he passes from rhetoric to sophistic,
flatters the weaknesses, and uses the follies, of mankind to win
his own way. But it is his strength when he builds on a
broad and solid basis of human nature which is universal and
permanent. For the world and nature only exist for man as
they are reflected iu the human mind ; and to recognize this
fact is the first law of art as of all practical pursuits in the



It is necessary for every one who approaches the study of
Greek sculpture and x^^-inting first to pay some attention to
the character of Greek dress. For the human figures which
are the subjects of Greek art are in the great majority of cases
clothed. And whereas every one necessarily has some small
knowledge and understanding of the human figure, very few
persons, even very few artists, understand how Greek dress
was cut and worn. This dress was astonishingly simple, and
yet in its arrangement so foreign to our habits and notions
that many learners find the greatest difficulty in understand-
ing it, or in believing that it was in actual use.

It does not, however, appear, in all cases, that the dress repre-
sented in Greek sculpture and painting was the dress actually
worn. There is in earlier Greek art a good deal of helplessness
and convention, and in later Greek art there is what maybe called
a rhetorical tendency, a striving after a pleasing result without
strict adherence to fact. "We must therefore be on our guard
in reading the evidence as to dress furnished by the monuments.
Works of archaic art often present to us elaborate systems of
folds and pleats which are quite conventional, and at a later
time dress has beyond doubt a tendency to pass into drapery,
that is, into dress arranged not for use but for artistic effect, as
foil or background. But notwithstanding this, it may be fairly
said that in the case of the great mass of Greek statues, and



even of figures in painting and relief, the dress is a possible
clothing, and represents the actual dress of daily life as closely
as the figures themselves represent the men and women of
street and market-place. The ugliness of modern dress has
caused us in our statues to adopt all sorts of fanciful and im-
possible costumes for our heroes and heroines, some of which
are supposed to be Greek or Roman. There was nothing of
the kind in ancient times. The actual dress of the Greeks was
planned as much with a view to beauty as for use ; its scheme
was charmingly simple, and it scarcely varied from century to
century. The degrading tyranny of fashion, which makes mod-
ern men and women change the manner of their dress every
year in obedience to some unwritten law mysteriously origi-
nated and mercilessly enforced, was quite unknown in antiquity.
It is, of course, this rule of fashion which makes it impossible
for modern dress to become beautiful ; for even if it in some
year by a fortunate chance drifted in the direction of beauty,
the beauty would in the next year become unfashionable, and
ugliness would take its place. Being exempt from the neces-
sity of constantly inventing new modes of dress, the Greeks
were able by slight changes in its arrangement to make it more
becoming and graceful ; and these small improvements were
welcomed and adopted by artists. But the main principles
never changed.

A strong line of distinction must be drawn between the
Ionian and the Dorian dress. ^ In dress, as in all the phe-
nomena of Greek history, the contrast of Ionian and Dorian is
emphatic, and the interworking of the two elements makes the

1 1 cannot in this chapter give authorities : for a fuller treatment, I must
refer to Gardner and Jevons, Manual of Greek Antiquities, Bk. I., ch. 5;
Lady Evans, Greek Dress; Studniczka, Griechische Tracht.




web of history. All who have paid any attention to works of
Greek sculpture must have observed that, in reliefs of an early
period from the coast of Asia Minor, or even Athens, the dress
both of men and of women is different
from that to which we are accustomed
in the later Avorks of the Greek chisel.
One of the best examples of this char-
acteristically Ionian art is the beautiful
Harpy Tomb from Lycia in the Brit-
ish Museum, a work which at once by
the charm of its compositions and the
mystery which hangs over their inter-
pretation readily fascinates the student
of Greek art. Here the dress of men
and women is exactly the same ; in
fact, at the present moment the sex of
some of the draped figures represented
on the tomb is in dispute. This dress
is of distinctly Oriental type ; its like-
ness to that of the mural reliefs of
Egypt and Assyria is obvious, although
a second look shows certain differences.
It consists of two garments (Fig. 3).
There is an undergarment, which is a
long chemise fitting the body and fur-
nished with sleeves which reach some-
what below the elbow. And there is
an overgarment, which is simply a
shawl of square form, doubled, passing under one arm and
fastened on the other shoulder. The two folds fall, one as far
as the feet, the other not so far. The undergarment does not
offer much scope for artistic variety ; but the overgarment
may be put on in many ways, as may be seen by any one who

Fig. 3. — From Athens.


examines the archaic female figures dedicated to Atliena, many
of which are now to be found in the Museum of the Acropolis
at Athens.^ Sometimes the fastening is on the left shoulder,
while the right arm is left free ; sometimes on the right shoul-
der ; sometimes the garment is laid over both shoulders. Often
on the breast the upper line of the garment is turned over a
band which passes over one shoulder so as to produce a pleas-
ing pattern.

This was the dress alike of women and of men, when in full
civic dress, in Asia Minor down to the Persian wars. And it
had evidently crossed the sea and established itself not merely
in the kindred city of Athens, but even in Peloponnesus. The
archaic sculptures of Delphi and Aegina and other important
religious sites show us this kind of dress used by female and
even by elderly male figures.

1 must content myself with this general statement. I be-
lieve that nearly all archaic female figures, except those that
wear the Dorian chiton of which I shall treat next, wear the
two garments which I have mentioned. The great apparent
variety of costume arises partly from the manner in which
the overdress is fastened, partly from the way in which the
folds are drawn over the band. Sometimes, however, there
are difficulties ; the manner in which the dresses are worn is
not represented as something which is practically workable.
Some archaeologists, examining the Athenian ladies, one by one
and minutely,- have fancied that their dress is far more com-
plicated than I have represented it. Into this matter I can-
not go in detail; but it seems that these archaeologists fail
through that overliteralness of which I have already spoken.
They do not realize the conventions and limits of early art.

1 A coloured cast of one in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. The figure in
the text is the dedication of Antenor, restored.

2 Especially M. Lechat, Au musee cle VAcropole,



For example, vase-painters and sculptors alike sometimes repre-
sent the upper and the lower part of the same undergarment
in quite a different fashion : the upper part being marked with
crinkled, the lower with straight, lines. Some of the Athenian
figures are examples, and we see the same custom in less ex-
treme form in the vase-painting below (Fig. 8). In studying
these dresses we must be prepared occasionally to cut a knot
which cannot be untied, and to assume a greater simplicity
than Ave can actually prove.

The Ionic was not, however, the primitive Hellenic dress.
Herodotus (v. 88) tells us, no doubt truly, that the real national
Greek dress was the Dorian, whereas the Ionian dress was
adopted by the Gi'eeks of Asia from their neighbours, the
Carians. After the Persian wars there came a strong reaction
against all the effeminate Oriental ways which had begun to
corrupt the manhood of Greece, such as the use of elaborate
coiffures and of trailing robes. And henceforth the Ionian
dress gives way in art, and the Dorian takes its i^lace, though
the change does not take place all at once — rather by a slow
process which lasts for half a century ; thus we often find a
combination of the Ionian and the Dorian dress on monuments.

There are two garments which belong especially to the
Dorian dress, whether of men or women: these are, the sleeve-
less chiton and the cloak, whether the ample himation or the
smaller chlamys. Dorian girls are usually represented in art
as clad in a single heavy chiton, or garment without sleeves,
hanging from the shoulders and fastened upon them by two
heavy clasps or fibulae. A closer examination shows that this
garment is often not in any way sewn or made up, but consists
only of an oblong piece of cloth folded in a particular way.
The following three diagrams will show how it was put on.




An oblong piece of material was taken (Fig. 4, I.), Imon,^ and
doubled over at the line ah, when it presented the form ahon,
where the portion am is doubled, an overfall. This was again
doubled at the line cd, and folded backward so as to leave the
flap Imc visible (Fig. 4, II.). The person putting it on would
now stand inside it, that is, between the two folds, at efhg (Fig.










d no

Fig. 4. — I., II., III.




4, III.) and fix with clasps the front and back portions together
over each shoulder at e and /. She would then let the cor-
ners ah and c fall, and the whole garment would be disposed
about her as in Fig. 5. In this figure, however, we notice
beneath the line of the overfall Im a second line which freely
undulates. This is produced by fastening a girdle round the
waist, and by its help drawing up the lower part of the chiton
and letting it fall over the girdle, thus producing the so-called

1 From Gardner and Jevons, Manual of Greek Antiquities, p. 53.




kolpos. Often in figures thus clad there is a break in the stuff
down the whole right side of the figure, whence we can under-
stand that this garment when worn alone was better suited to


Fig. 5. — Girl from Herculaneum.

indoor life than to that out of doors, though the Greeks were
by no means so squeamish as we are in the matter of display-
ing the bodily forms.

The Doric women's chiton was commonly worn alone, and
so nuiy be considered as either an under- or an over-dress. It




would, of course, be possible to wear under it a shift, such as in
fact we see on one of the figures on a sculptured drum of a
column from Ephesus. Or it would be possible to wear over
it the cloak, or himation, of which we shall presently speak.
But usually when this cloak is worn the chiton is less ample,
and the overfall is dispensed with. Like everything Greek,
the garment admits of many simple varieties without losing
its essential character. For example, when the huntress Arte-
mis wears the Dorian chiton, she sometimes girds it up so that
it does not fall below the knee. Sometimes the open side of
the garment seems to be sewn up. Often sleeves are made by
joining on the arm by means of clasps or buttons the front and
back portions of the dress. When this is done, it is sometimes
not easy to distinguish between the sleeveless Doric and the
sleeved and sewn Ionic chiton. In fact, as we shall presently
see, in the case of the great art of the fifth and fourth centu-
ries, the under-dress is very often something between the Doric

and Ionic type, and evidently
made of soft materials and of
ample dimensions.

Fig. 6. — I., II.i

The Dorian dress, unlike the Ionian, is by no means the

same for men and women. The chiton, or shirt, of men was in

form not unlike the Doric women's chiton, but was far less

ample, often coming but halfway down the thigh. Instances

'^Ga.rdneT and JeYons, Manual of Greek Antiquities,^. 55.




abound, for example, in the Parthenon frieze. Like the
women's chiton, it was ordinarily fastened on both shoulders ;
but the workmen when at work, the smith-god Hephaestus for
example, would usually gird it under, not over, the right arm,
so as to leave it per-
fectly free for action.
The Doric cloak, or
himation,was worn by
men and women alike
as an outer garment.
The women's cloak
would usually be of
finer material ; the
men's more adapted
to practical purposes.
Its form is as simple
as that of the chiton,
but it is somewhat
less oblong. It con-
sisted (Fig. 6, 1.) of a
square of cloth, abed,
doubled over at the
line Ini so as to take
the form Imcd (Fig.
6, 11.) . This was then ^'^' 7— From a Greek amphora.i

taken up and the point x placed on the left shoulder, the part
xnibc falling over the chest. The part xijzl was then brought
round the back of the body, the point y passing under the right
arm, which was left quite free. It was further brought round
the chest until the point z reached the left shoulder, when the
remainder, zl, was gathered together and thrown over the arm or
the back. We thus reach the result shown above (Fig. 7).

1 Ashmolean Cataloyue, Fig. 2").


1 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Online LibraryPercy GardnerA grammar of Greek art → online text (page 4 of 18)