indeed, suppose different modes of imitation, and even different dimensions. The imitation of the details of dress is one of the points which characterise works of art of moderate size; for the fullest means of imitation which painting can employ are, strictly speaking, most appreciable in such dimensions, as coming within the range of most distinct vision; and hence, the more complete those means, the more the introduction of accidental circumstances is compatible with due gradation. But, as dimensions and distance increase, or, as the scale of effect which represents the differences of nature, from whatever cause, becomes less full, or less appreciable, the objects represented require to be selected with an especial regard to their importance, beauty, and character.

No. VI.

SCULPTURE.*

THE restrictions imposed on the selection and treatment of subjects by the nature of the art itself, are much more rigid in the case of sculpture, which, strictly speaking, has but one style. The principle, that in proportion as the means of representation become circumscribed the imitation of inanimate objects becomes less satisfactory, is here especially applicable. The surface of life, either alone, or with drapery that indicates the form or adorns it, was with the Greek sculptors the chief object of imitation.

As in considering the claims of painting it is desirable to keep the highest style in view, though that style may be seldom attainable or seldom арplicable, so in sculpture, a description of the practice of the ancients in their best works may not be out of place here, although it is too certain that modern habits and associations may often render it impossible to conform to the example.

It will be needless to dwell on the more obvious requisites of sculpture; the necessity of beauty in

* [From a paper in the Appendix to the Third Report of the Commissioners on the Fine Arts, 1844.-ED.]

an art which can conceal nothing; the necessity of balancing the mere weight, and the degree of symmetry in composition which results from that law; or on the general principles (applicable to all the arts of design) of proportion, breadth, gradation of quantities, and contrast. It is proposed here chiefly to consider its specific style,* as more directly affecting the question of the selection of subjects fitted for it. For this purpose it will be necessary to ascend to its simplest elements.

The art of sculpture imitates with more or less completeness the real bulk of objects, their substance and form, but it does not imitate their colour. This restriction is the result of a comprehensive view of imitation; it is by no means from actual impossibility, but because the end of genuine illusion would be defeated by the attempt. statue coloured to the life might deceive the spectator for a moment, but he would presently discover that life and motion were wanting; and the imitation would be consequently pronounced to be incomplete. Whatever is attempted by the arts, the

A

* The general style of the formative arts is the result of a principle of selection, as opposed to indiscriminate imitation. It consists, therefore, in qualities which may be said to distinguish those arts from nature. The specific style of any one of the arts consists in the effective use of those particular means of imitation which distinguish it from the other arts. Style is complete when the spectator is not reminded of any want which another art or which nature could supply. [See the Essay, No. 11.-ED.]

perfection of style requires that the imitation, however really imperfect with reference to nature, or even with reference to other modes of representation, should suggest no want. The imagination then assents to the illusion, though the senses are far from being deceived.

As it is well known that the ancients occasionally added colour to their statues, it will be necessary to consider this difficulty at once. It may be observed that the colours employed were probably never intended to increase the resemblance of the object to nature, but that they served only to insure distinctness, or were merely for ornament. The gilding of the hair, for instance, however objectionable, would not be condemned on the ground of its being too close an imitation of real hair. So also the colour which was sometimes appropriated to the statues of Mercury, Bacchus, and Pan, would never be mistaken for flesh. Sometimes the accessories only were coloured. An epigram, ascribed by Heyne to Virgil, alludes to a statue of Amor with partycoloured wings and a painted quiver. But the mixed materials of some of the statues even of Phidias, the gems inserted for eyes, and the silver nails of other figures,* all indicate a practice which

* See Pausanias, who, in his description of Greek statues, gives a variety of such examples. Three kinds of embellishment were sometimes added to complete the work of the sculptor; three classes of decorators finished the statue-the varnisher, the gilder, and the tinter. Letronne (Lettres d'un

F

the taste of modern artists condemns, and which was, perhaps, condemned by the ancient sculptors also. In many cases religious devotion may have interfered to decorate a statue, as paintings of the Madonna are sometimes adorned with real necklaces and crowns. In the instance of the chryselephantine statue of Minerva by Phidias, the Athenians insisted that the materials should be of the richest kind.

Notwithstanding these facts and the difficulty of altogether exculpating the artists, it is quite certain that it was impossible to carry further than they did those judicious conventions in sculpture, which supply the absence of colour. It may therefore be presumed that such supposed absence of colour was, with the ancients, an essential condition of the art; and it will appear that this condition materially affected its executive style.

It would indeed soon be apparent that the differences which colours in nature present-for example, in the distinction of the face from the hair, and of the drapery from the flesh-require to be met in sculpture by some adequate or equivalent differences; hence, the contrasts adopted were either

Antiquaire à un Artiste. Paris, 1840, p. 399.) quotes a passage from Plutarch (De Glor. Athen.) where these different artists are referred to : ἀγαλμάτων ἐγκαυσταὶ, χρυσωταὶ καὶ βαφεῖς. Letronne and Müller are of opinion that the draperies and accessories only were painted and gilt, the undraped portions of the statue being merely varnished.