CLOTHING OF STATUES.
" SCULPTOR" returns to the charge, with a furious intention to put us hors de combat. Ilis thrusts, however, though tierce, are easily par. tied, for we merely stand on the defensive ; but, fie on his chivalry ! be strikes foul blows. With so noble, and, in his idea, triumphant a cause, why need he be out of temper? above all, he should fight fair. We give his rejoinder verbatim, since he complained of our abridging his former communication ; commenting on the misrepresentations as they occur. Here, however, the controversy must end. It may be as well to remind the reader of the point in discussion : SCULPTOR contends that portrait statues should he either naked or fancifully draped ; the Spectator maintains that the person should be represented " in his habit as he lived."
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SPECTATOR.
SIR—We throw down the gauntlet to those who would sacrifice the divine art of sculpture at the shrine of ignorance. The writer on the clothing of statues, in the last Spectator, No. 491, Sept. 16th, supports the efficiency (a) of modern dress, for the purposes of sculpture, by arguments inconclusive and inconsistent: ile laments the Inability of Scot,Pron to express his ideas clearly and concisely : a review of his strictures will scarcely free himself from the same charge. SCULPTOR COMPIIIIS for the following general principles as rules to guide the artist, elevate the art, and yield pleasure anti improvement to the people; and these, like all general rules, may be modified, but the principle may not be deposited from. Scer.rron argues, as a general principle, that soldiers should be represented nude, as affording power to the artist to enforce and develop the simple and severe characteristics of soldiers. Our opponent instances the statue of Phociou, as a proof that soldiers were not represented nude by the Greeks. (h) This statue we consider as a modification of the general rule; but theprinciple laid down by SCULPTOR is still triumphant. Ince cMn is represented having troth legs and one arm bare; around his shoulders is hung a simple skin, like those worn by common soldiers, to indicate the extreme simplicity and severity of character of the Athenian general. Out opponent says, " the Romans invariably (c) clothed their statues, divinities nnil andel oe excepted :" if he would open the Mateo Clemeatino, he would there observe drawings made from statues of the Roman Emperors existing in the Vatican, which, upon the principle contended for by Sceiteros, the ancient sculptors have executed naked, when their characteristics am (a) The gist of our argument was, not " the efficiency of modern dress for the_purposes of sculpture," but the propriety of representing modern persons in their habitual or official costume.
(b) We instanced the Phocion, not " as a proof that soldiers were not repre- treated nude by the Greeks," bat as one among other examples of the Greeks clothing their figures in the ordinary costume.
(c) " Almost invariably " was our expression; for we had in view some of the examples to the contrary that SCULPTOR instances. Though the excep- tions are numerous, they are not so, compared with the multitude of proofs of the rule. S 'fliers demanded it; as, for instance. Pompey, Augustus, Caligula. 1)011iiliJIL Adrian, Trajam &c. &c. are all executed naked; a nil this proves that the principle, " that soldiers should be represented nude." Was nut considered so absurd by the Romans (d) as our opponent would uesire. Now for the second general principle contended for by SCULPTOR." that philosophers aoul statesmen should be represented draped." By the capability drapery possesses of
n.atching the infinite variety of form and character displayed by nature in man, and
which power is so great as this. that a piece of drapery thrown into any position acci- dent or design wills it, never assumes the same folds, a power is placed in the hands of the sculptor to produce a costume of more iudividnal (e) relation to the mats than he could do by the useof such limited means as modern dress affords. By the severe study and application of this principle, sculpture %wild rise to its proper station as a profouud
and s .vere art ; and would requite a much higher order of mind among its professors than the mere carving of buttons and button-pules tiemauds. awl of course, among the people, it correepouding degree of knowledge. The principle " that statesmen and philosophers should be draped." is subject also to a degree of modification. We fiud that the statues
of Roman Emperors, instanced as proof of the first general principle, also afford proof to the truth of the second. Augustus is represented naked as a soldier; but he is also
tepresented draped, to indicate his character as a statesman; sometimes partially
draped• to indicate his mixed character as soldier and statesman. Nerva is represented partially draped ; so is Vespasian, so also is Trojan. There is also a statue in the Louvre, called by some Germanicus, by others a Boman orator. who is represented nude, with a piece of drapery limning from his arm. These we consider to be fair examples (tithe modification of this p inciple, and quite suflicieut to prove the assertion colour opponent false. that the Romans invariably clothed their statutes." (f ) The third general principle we contend for, " that youth should be represented nude." is denied and granted in the Same breath by our opponent. He says. " any cos. tune, however ugly, is better than nudity, or nudity veiled with drapery, howerer gent." The latter part of this sentence is so absurd, that we cannot conceive a mats to express so monstrous an opinion, and 1.e in earnest : the first part of the sentence. how- ever.decidedly condemns nudity. whit • a little before he admitted that the" A tairtous" was with propriety executed nude, as his tom was graceful and elegant. lie admitted our principle for the same reason that we advanced it ; and surely he cannot think seolplors are so fond of the ugly and grotesque, that they would, like him, prefer it to elegance and beauty. (9) This general principle may, like the rest, be modified, but not deserted. riceteron. laid down a text by which to prove the triumph of statuary, "That statutes of warriors and statesman should be executed so homogenous in all their parts, Unit, the heads destroyed, one might iufer the character and intention of the whole from what remains." Our opponeut denies that I'm DIAS could prodece a status to stand this test. We boldly assert that such inteution formed the aim• as the re. alixation of this noble Mtn named the gIrry of Greek sculpture : knock off the heads of the '• Dying Gladiator," in the Capitol. aad of the " Laocoom" in the Vatican. mud would our opponent assert there was uo expression in their bodied and limbs, even without the chief seat of expression,t he head. (h) The ancients felt that theeharm and virtue (tithe art lay in the homogeneity (tithe forms they executed; and their mar- vellous labours prove the success of their aim. The beautiful statue ol'the"Achilles," in the Lutists., by the individuality and harmony reigning from head to heel, illustrates the chotracter of a warrior, differiug from the equally pox erful illustration of soothe* class of courage, in the statue called the " FiLlaing Warrior." We give our opponent a powerful and triumphant answer to his ohketion, that statues cannot be executed to stand the above test, by adducing the restoration of a head to the " Dancing Faun," in the Tribune at Florence. by MICHAEL ANOSI.O. How that divine spirit executed his task, let the au orld acknou ledge ; 'tis sufficient to us, the fact that the character of a bevel can Le inferred from what reaming. Our opponent may object to these being all ideal works: we proleas we du not understand the word ideal, so frequently used. The glory of these works consists in their test to nature; and, with so glorious a result, who dare debar its rut carry lug out these pi ineiples in portrait statues ? (i) Doubtless the study is a more arduous one than square-skirted coats and squarwtoed shoes re- quire ; but because this knowledge is difficult to attain, why should the attLinitt be cliaract erizi41 as absurd, and the man who advocates it called a dreaming cut liusiast We must notice oar opponent's ungencro is assumption, that the abuse t-f a principle is pawl' of the absurdity of that principle. (1) He laughs at Dr. Johnson, in St. Paul's. SettLyroa can join him in his merriment. and with satisfaction too, as this statue in executed in opposition to our principle, that philosopers should be repre- sented draped. Ile then drags in PARK'S statue of Sadler, as an additional Inset of the tubsurdity of this principle ; and lie is facetious in describing the drayel y " as a white sheet wrapped round the forte,"—forgett ing, wit lt characteristic inconsistency,that he 1140 eulogized the statue of Aristides as a proof of good taste and :1111:ilMent : 1101%• this statue has also a sheet rotund h's naked form. (m) It is easy to throw ridicule In this way, but in doing so our opooneut should be consistent. The pie- cie!es upon which both statues are executed a e esseuLially the sane, but no doubt im- measurably better managed by the Greek than by the tkotchman. SCULPTOR can afford to suffer the strictures of a critic who preliTs to the beautiful statue of Bona- parte by ('ANOVA, that ritliculouseftlgy or a cocked-hat, greatcoat , and jack-boots, in the Place Vendibne iu Paris. to) Dr. Johnsun, says our opponent, might be made to look quite picturesque in his bushy wig, his squarwskirted coat, and squaretoed shoes : what can be mean by applying the word picturesque to sculpture? We must suppose that, the statue sculptured, he means to paint his wig, coat. and shoes, after the manner we see done with the small statue of Napoleon, (a copy of the great work at l'aris,) and now so common in eigarorhops; instead of a telescope, holding alight for the benefit of the smoker. (o) We will extract one opinion. which we think ex. coaslingly strange—" The unnatural costume of the time of Q acorn ELIZABETH is preferable to Huy unmeaning drapery, however ELEGANT." This extract speaks (d) The practice would not have been so absurd in ancient Rome or Greece as in modern England.
(e) This we deny.
(f) The " almost " is again an important omission; particularly when it is borne in mind that the sculptors would very probably have represented the Roman Emperors naked as demigods, or as possessing forms of perfect sym. merry, or as philosophers, to flatter them. But though the practice of the ancients was Instanced in corroboration of our argument, it is not binding on us moderns, for customs and climates differ. (g) It cannot fairly be inferred from our argument that we " prefer the ugly and grotesque to elegance and beauty : " we prefer character and truth M portrait statuary, be it ugly or grotesque, to what is not truly characteristic, be it ever so beautiful. The Antinous was instanced as an exception that par- ticularly proved the rule ; for the fame of ANTINOUS being his beautiful form, it was an essential part of his character to display its perfections. (h) SCULPTOR finds it convenient here to forget that we are speaking of "portrait statues" only ; and of them, too, only as portraits. (i) To be sure we do: these examples are not quotable in this discussion. Does SCULPTOR require to told, that in portrait sculpture personal character, as developed in feature, form, attitude, and dress, is paramount, while in ideal sculpture individual nature is of no account. To profess not to understand the term " ideal," is a very unfavourable sign on the part of any artist ; and in one who talks so largely of "the divine art of sculpture," it makes his lofty en- thusiasm seem to be mere empty vapouring. What we understand by the term " ideal " in sculpture, is nature perfected ; and as perfection is incompatible with frail mortality, ideality is out of place in portrait statuary. (k) Lest it should be inferred that we so styled our correspondent, we be to observe that we have too much respect for rational enthusiasm in the pursuit of art to sneer at those who manifest it.
(1) It is an assumption of SCULPTOR, and all incorrect one too, is infer that we argued so absurdly : we quoted examples where the principle was fairly carried out : indeed we ourselves drew this very distinctionbetween the English George the Third and the French Bonaparte. (m) We take this to be the ordinary dress of the Athenian philosophers ; and we said so. (a) This is not ingenuous. As a beautiful piece of sculpture, of course we admire CA NovA's figure; but as a portrait we prefer the one which Set:LA.7o% vainly tries to hold up to ridicule. (o) Very funny, but not to the point : the term " picturesque " is com- monly applied to what strikes the eye as agreeable in form as well as colour ; the term scuIptureslue, however, would express our meaning quite as well. This is paltry quibbling. volumes ; and we can only admire the hardihood which could express such an opinion.(p) There are many more points of objection to the strictures of our op- body ; and if the ancient sculptors imitated coats of mall in marble, they copied what they saw actually before them, and could never intend to express an impossibility. (q) ponent. -such as his defence of sculptors In expressing the muscles through kerseymere sculptor. and historical ;fainters, up and resist the ignorance of the age: our cause is a hteethes, because the Romans expressed the muscles through coots of mail. Our op- ponent forgets that the coats of mail of Romans were REALLY made to the shape of the common one. Mr. Editor and Sir, we are your Very obliged servant, not receive undeserved credit, from nppearing in your admirable journal. Brother ter badly written, in order that our opponent's comments on our previous letter may Mr. Editor, we solicit the honour of a place in your columns for these remarks, how- SCULPTOR. (p) Yes; we repeat it. The costume actually worn by the individual being essential to character in portrait statuary, as representing the country and con- dition of the person and the time in which he lived, grotesqueness is preferable to uncharacteristic elegance. We are glad to find that our words arc so pregnant of meaning: as for the " hardihood," we hold that argument of little worth that cannot be boldly carried out without impairing its efficacy. (g) We were quite aware of this fact : but as a coat armour made to the shape must present an unvarying surface, how comes it that the external indica- tions of the muscles on the armour always correspond with the lay of the figure? But even if no more of the form were developed in a statue than is shown through modern full dress, enough of the figure would be visible to dis- play the knowledge or ignorance of the sculptor. The most ample folds of the thickest drapery cannot wholly conceal from the critical eye the merit of the form within ; though, if the Greeks employed " wet drapery " to display the form more fully, why may not modern sculptors upon occasion represent the dress of thinner material than ordinary ?
Previous page
