Chapter 10 of 17 · 3753 words · ~19 min read

Part 10

At Prato the monuments of this class have been photographed, and are well known. Florence and its immediate surroundings contain the most important works of Luca and of Giovanni Delia Robbia, but is very poor in examples of Andrea Delia Robbia. Hence the Florentines have a very inadequate notion of Andrea's work, which must be studied at Arezzo, La Verna, Prato, Siena and Viterbo. At Florence I was fortunate enough to find an unpublished document ascribing one of the medallions at Or San Michele to Luca Delia Robbia. Two of these medallions by the elder Luca had never been photographed before, but have now been taken by Alinari. So far as I know, the monuments at Impruneta, ten miles from Florence, are unknown to students of this subject. Three of them have been photographed by Brogi, who gives no attributions. They are not mentioned by Cavallucci nor by Dr. Bode; yet they are amongst the very finest works by Luca Delia Robbia. In the private collection of the Marquis Frescobaldi I recognized a fine Luca Delia Robbia, and in that of the Marquis Antinori an excellent example of Giovanni's work. Less important discoveries made in this region are too numerous to mention. At Empoli, not many miles from Florence, are several uncatalogued monuments and a fine example of a tile pavement, which I identified as Delia Robbia work. I then visited Poggibonsi and Volterra and Siena, and satisfied myself that the beautiful coronation of the Virgin at the Osservanza outside Siena is a chef-d'oeuvre of Andrea Delia Robbia. From Asciano I visited Monte San Savino, Lucignano and Foiano and took photographs of some fine, unrecognized works of Andrea Delia Robbia. Another starting point was Montepulciano for a long drive to Radicofani, a weird Etruscan site, whose churches contained half a dozen unphotographed Delia Robbias, then to S. Fiora, whose monuments have a greater reputation than they deserve, to S. Antimo, a fine Cistercian ruin, and Montalcino. At Perugia I photographed the monuments of Benedetto Buglione, thus laying the basis for a study of his works, a number of which may now be identified. In the case of his pupil, Santi Buglione, I was less successful, as the chapel at Croce dell'Alpe, which contained two authenticated altarpieces of his Page 85 seems to have disappeared, not only from sight, but from the memory of the inhabitants of the neighborhood. So the reconstruction of his style involves a wider stretch of the scientific imagination. At Acquapendente I found a unique glazed terracotta altar signed by Jacopo Benevento, at Bolsena took the first photograph of several monuments, and at Viterbo had photographs made of the important lunettes by Andrea Delia Robbia. At Rome I penetrated the mysteries of the Vatican and discovered there a signed monument by Fra Lucas, son of Andrea Delia Robbia, and found in the Industrial Museum several monuments, which I identified as by the same author. Hitherto Fra Lucas has been known only as the maker of tile pavements. At Montecassiano there is a large monument concerning which a document has been published in many Italian journals, ascribing the authorship to Fra Mattia Delia Robbia. This has been published from a drawing, and my photograph is the first taken from the original monument. On the basis of a very imperfect acquaintance with his style, other monuments are being freely attributed to Fra Mattia. In the Marche there is a series of terracotta altarpieces attributed to Pietro Paolo Agabiti, a local painter of the XVI century. These attributions are purely hypothetical, and the hypothesis that Fra Mattia might have been their author is now being tested by local archaeologists. I travelled over a large portion of this province, seeing some important monuments, but without making discoveries of importance. Umbria in general proved even less fruitful, the terracotta monuments being of poor quality and showing little or no Delia Robbia influence.

A very interesting region comprises Città di Castello, Borgo San Sepolcro, Arezzo and the Casentino. Here Andrea Delia Robbia left his impress strongly marked, especially in the very beautiful altarpieces at La Verna. As we approach Florence we find more by Giovanni and his school, especially noteworthy being the monuments at Galatrona and San Giovanni.

When obliged to return home there remained very few known Delia Robbia monuments in Italy which I had not visited; almost everywhere I found more than had been already catalogued, and my collection of photographs of these monuments is undoubtedly the most complete in existence. Already considerable knowledge has been gained of the differences of style, which characterized the various members of the school, as I hope to show in a series of articles for the _American Journal of Archæology_. In order to complete this work I shall still have to hunt further in the museums and private collections of Spain, Portugal, France, England, Germany and Austria. There are a few Delia Robbia monuments in this country, of which one Page 86 is in Princeton, one in New York, one in Newport, R.I., and several in Boston.

Beside the direct pleasures of the chase and the bagging of game, there are many incidental pleasures in such a hunting expedition.

One learns of the whereabouts of other monuments, acquires a knowledge of the country, of the language, of the people and of all the local surroundings that help explain to us the significance of the past.

Yours sincerely,

ALLAN MARQUAND. Guernsey Hall, Princeton, N.J., Dec, 27, 1892.

Page 87

REVIEWS AND NOTICES OF BOOKS.

MAXIME COLLIGNON. _Histoire de la Sculpture Grecque._ Tome I. Firmin-Didot et Cie. Paris, 1892.

This is the first volume of what is likely to prove for some time to come the best general history of Greek sculpture. The personal inspection of monuments made during his connection with the French school at Athens, and his training as a lecturer at the Faculté des Lettres at Paris, have given M. Collignon an admirable training for the production of this book. We see in it also a hearty appreciation of more specialized work. This is essentially a history from the archæaeological standpoint, the monuments of Greek sculpture, rather than written documents, being assumed as fundamental material. In this respect he represents a more advanced stage of archæological science than Overbeck. Again we feel in reading the volume the constant assumption that the history of Greek sculpture is a continuous evolution. Even when the development is checked, as by the Dorian invasion, the element of continuity is emphasized. The Dorians construct new forms out of the elements which they find already established in Greece. Thus the connecting links evincing the continuous flow, are not lost sight of when he comes to treat of the different schools. This regard for the general conditions of development tempers his judgment and prevents him from formulating or approving of irrelevant and improbable hypotheses. This is an admirable temper for one who writes a general history. We do not find here remote analogies and startling theories. There is an even flow to the narrative which indicates to us that the knowledge of Greek sculpture is now more connected, and that many gaps have been filled in the list during a few years. Yet M. Collignon is not a literary trimmer, steering a middle course between opposing theories. He merely seeks for near and probable causes, and is not carried away by resemblances which have little historical value. His method is fundamentally the historical method, the four books which compose the first volume treating of the Primitive Periods, Early Archaic, and Advanced Archaic Periods, and The Great Masters of the V century. It is unnecessary to give here the general analysis of the book, as it does not differ essentially from other similar Page 88 histories, but we may notice the systematic method with which he treats his material. At the opening of each new period he briefly notes the general historical conditions, then having classed the monuments by schools he considers the characteristics of a few representative examples, and finally endeavors to summarize the style of the school or period. In doing this he is handling considerable new material which has not yet found its way into general histories. Even to specialists, this general treatment of a subject with which they may be familiar in detail, is valuable. The book is a summary and index to a large number of monographs scattered in French, German, Greek and English periodicals, and we find it much more convenient to have these references at the foot of each page rather than gathered together at the end of the volume as in Mrs. Mitchell's excellent history. Of course it is no easy matter to distinguish sharply the characteristics of different schools in a country as small as Greece, where there was so much interaction, and the formulas, which are laid down now, may require correction in a few years. Still the attempt is well made, and is helpful in consolidating our knowledge.

In a work of whose method we cordially approve, the defects, if there be any, are likely to be in the way of omission of material or under-valuation of that which is taken into consideration. In the direction of omission we find that practically no use whatever has been made of Cyprus as a school of archaic Greek art, yet there is considerable material for this in European museums as well as in the Metropolitan museum in New York. In unduly estimating the value of the material in hand, we find here and there more influence attributed to the Phoenicians, than we should be inclined to allow. For example (p. 43,) the ceiling at Orchomenos, is explained as Phoenician because of the rosettes, and the same design upon Egyptian ceilings at Thebes is explained as Phoenician also. Evidently M. Collignon has not yet learned the grammar of the Egyptian lotus. We commend him to Prof. Goodyear. He is also in error in ascribing the first use of the term "lax-archaic" to Brunn's article in the _Muth. Ath._ vii. p. 117, for it held an important place in Semper's classification of Doric monuments made three years earlier. But these are minor matters. The book is abundantly illustrated, having twelve excellent plates in lithograph and photogravure, and two hundred and seventy-eight in the tone process and photoengraving. We regret that the tone process had not been more extensively used, as the drawings do not and cannot give a sufficiently full impression of the objects. However, is it quite proper that the maker of a tone process plate should sign it as is done here _Petit sculpsit_?

A.M. Page 89

HEINRICH-BRUNN. _Griechische Götterideale in ihren Formen erlüutert._ 8vo. pp. VIII, 110. München, Verlagsanstalt für Kunst und Wissenschaft. 1892.

This is not a systematic treatise, but a series of nine papers, all of which, except the last, have been already published. But we are grateful to Dr. Brunn and to his publishers for having collected these articles, which were scattered in various periodicals and written at wide intervals of time. In their present form they are instructive as revealing to us Dr. Brunn's general habits of mind in approaching his subject, as well as more useful and better adapted to a wide circle of readers. The first of these articles on the Farnese Hera appeared in the _Bullettino dell' Instituto_, in 1846, and is described as the "first attempt at the analytical consideration of the ideal of a Greek God," while the entire series may be taken as evidence that "the intellectual understanding of ideal artistic productions can be reached only on the basis of a thorough analysis of form." For his analysis of sculptural form, and his keen intuitions, Dr. Brunn has long been held in high esteem, and it is interesting to learn what we can of his methods. In considering the Hera head he first examined the original, afterwards a cast of it for many hours, then compared these impressions with observations made upon a human scull. In doing this he brings the work of art to nature, so as to substantiate or correct his impressions. We see him following the same method in the articles upon the Medusa and upon Asklepios. But this reference to nature is for the most part casual and incidental. It is not to nature but to literature that he resorts for help. He is not content to trust himself entirely to the method enunciated in the preface. He does not rest satisfied with the ideals as he reads them in the sculptured faces. He rather assumes that these ideals were fixed before they were expressed in marble. He looks at the heads of Hera and Zeus through "ox-eyed" and "dark-browed" glasses. He accepts the Divine ideal from the pages of Homer, rather than from the marble form, whenever it is possible. His mind is still imbued with doctrines concerning the "eternity of ideas" and "inward necessity," which he must have reached in some other way than by the analysis of external forms.

But while we may regard the method as not consistently applied, we have no fault to find with the method and no sentiment but that of admiration for the fine powers of observation displayed in these articles. There seems to be nothing in the form of the eye that escapes his attention. The slightest variations in the form of the lids, in the positions of the eyeball, he notices Page 90 and assumes that they were made the vehicles of expression. Similarly the forehead, the mouth, the chin, the hair are most attentively studied as vehicles of expression. Surely few, even trained archæologists, can read these pages without having their powers of observation quickened. By far the greater portion of workers in the field of Greek sculpture are concerned at the present time with the morphology of art for the sake of its history. The analysis of forms is utilized to ascertain an historical series, to discover schools, to establish dates. Here we find scarcely a mention of schools or artists, no reference to history and not a date. The analysis of form leads to the interpretation of monuments and the establishment of ideals. It is the physiology, not the history of art. The publishers, who are gaining a world-wide reputation for their photo process reproductions, have added to this book a series of fine phototype plates.

A.M.

Page 91

ARCHÆOLOGICAL NEWS.

SUMMARY OF RECENT DISCOVERIES AND INVESTIGATIONS.

AFRICA.

EGYPT.

TEXTS OF THE PYRAMIDS.--_Biblia_ for November, 1892, contains an article by Dr. Brugsch on "The Texts of the Pyramids." It mentions the opening of one of the smaller pyramids of the Sakkarah group in 1880 by Mariette Pasha and the discovery of a number of hieroglyphic inscriptions beautifully chiseled into the walls of the inner aisles and chamber, which gave the name of the maker of the pyramid as Pepi, and fixed its date at the VI Dynasty or about 3,000 B.C. Prof. Brugsch then gives an account of his own work at the request of Mariette upon a second pyramid opened by Mariette's men at Sakkarah, where the walls of the chamber were covered with hieroglyphic inscriptions. A granite coffin, also, was found adorned with hieroglyphics repeating in different places the name of the King. The inscriptions on the walls had been destroyed in a number of places by treasure hunters.

Maspero, Mariette's successor, opened a number of pyramids of the same group and found a great quantity of inscriptions. As a result, new texts were discovered in a number of pyramids of which three belonged to the royal houses of the V and VI Dynasties. Maspero then published a copy of all these inscriptions together with their translation as far as this was possible.

These discoveries establish the important point in the study of the language, that its "iconographic phrase" dates from the most ancient times and goes back even to Menes the first king. The grammar, vocabulary and the construction of words and sentences betray the awkward stiffness of a language in its first literary beginnings, but it is shown in all its youthful strength and pregnance.

A reciprocal comparison of all the texts found establishes the fact that they belong to a collection of texts known as "the Book." This "book" contained all the formulas and conjurations Page 92 used after death, is a guide for the deceased in the unknown future, and a book of charms, in which guise the Egyptian faith made its appearance in the most ancient period of culture, although containing nothing of the philosophy or history of the ancient Egyptians, it gives us much interesting information relating to mythology, geography, astronomy, botany and zoology.

For the ancient Egyptians believed that their earthly districts, cities and temples had heavenly counterparts of the same name; in fact, the whole geography of this world was duplicated in the world to come. The celestial inhabitants consist of the immortal company of the "shining" with the solar god at their head. Each constellation is designated as the abode of the soul of one god benificent or maleficent. In his wanderings the soul of man came in contact with these abodes of the evil gods and the book which covered the walls of his mortuary chamber provided charms which made him proof against harm.

The texts of the pyramids promise to the departed the enjoyment of a new life which he continues to live in the earth, in the body, in heaven, in the spirit. The soul had power to reunite itself to the body at will. We find in the texts mention of Egyptian political institutions at the remotest period, the existence of a high type of civilization. Agriculture was highly developed. All the domestic animals, with the exception of the horse and camel, are introduced, the arts of cooking, of dressing and of personal adornment, all find mention.

The texts of the pyramids then, though they fail to give us any information with regard to the life or history of the kings whose chambers they adorned have still much significance for the universal history of civilization.

THE MARRIAGE OF AMENOPHIS IV.--The Amarna tablets show that Amenophis married other Babylonian princesses besides Thi his first wife who bore the title of "Royal mother, Royal wife, and Queen of Egypt." A large tablet on exhibition at the British Museum with two others in the museum at Berlin and one at Gizeh gives a very entertaining correspondence between Amenophis and Kallima-Sin, king of Chaldea and brother of one of Amenophis' wives and father of two others. The tablet in the British Museum is relative to the alliance with Lukhaite the youngest daughter of the Chaldean king.

Kallima-Sin is reluctant to give his daughter to the Pharaoh and advances various reasons for his indisposition while Amenophis smoothly explains away the various impediments.

Matters take a new turn in the Berlin letter where we find the Babylonian requesting a wife of the Egyptian monarch, the request is curtly refused, whereupon Kallima-Sin replies, Page 93 "Inasmuch as thou hast not sent me a wife, I will do in like manner unto thee and hinder any lady from going from Babylon to Egypt." Another letter however shows that Kallima-Sin finally consented on condition of large emolument to send Lukhaite to Egypt, and this very mercenary and diplomatic alliance was finally made.--_Biblia_, V, pp. 108, 109.

THE DATE OF THE FOURTH EGYPTIAN DYNASTY.--Mr. Petrie's statement in _Medum_ as to the passage-angle of Senefru's pyramid completes a chain of astronomical evidence proving the commencement of the IV Dynasty to have been very approximately 3700 B.C.

The entrance passage of the Medum pyramid has a polar distance (allowing for the azimuth error of the passage) of about 45, and, if intended for observation of a circumpolar star, fixes the date of the structure within not very wide limits. Between 4900 and 2900 B.C. no naked eye star was within this distance of the pole, except the sixth magnitude star 126 Piazzi (XIII) which was so situate about 3820 to 3620 B.C., its minimum distance being about 36'. Allowing an uncertainty of a few minutes of arc, a date fifty years on either side of these extremes would satisfy the requirements of the case.

The passage-angle of the Great Pyramid is 3° 30' below the pole (3° 34' in the built portion, the latest). The Second Pyramid passage has also an angle of about 3° 31' polar distance (Smyth's measures--Perring and Vyse, whose angle measures are not accurate, give 4° 5'). Finally the northern "trial-passage" east of the Great Pyramid has the polar distance 3° 22' + or - 8'. Now at the date 3650 B.C. the star 217 Piazzi (somewhat brighter than that last named) was at a distance of 3° 29' from the pole, increasing to 3° 34' by 3630 B.C.

East of the Great Pyramid there are certain straight trenches (one at the N.E. corner) running respectively 13° 6', 24° 22', and 75° 58' east of North and west of South. At about the date named these trenches pointed very nearly to Canopus at setting and to Arcturus and Altair at rising, the average error of azimuth being less than a degree.

But even these differences of half a degree or so are accounted for. Refraction at the horizon amounts to about 35' of arc; if we assume that the Egyptian (?) astronomers took it roundly at 30', and that they intended to observe the stars on the true and not the apparent horizon, we find the azimuths would have been (3645 B.C.):--

Canopus 13° 3' (W. of S.), Trench 13° 6' Arcturus 24° 23' (E. of N.), " 24° 22' Altair 76° 0' ( " ), " 75° 58'

These figures speak for themselves. The dates 3645 B.C. for the trenches and external works, and 3630 B.C. for the completion Page 94 of the entrance passage, with an interval of fifteen years, accord with the probabilities of the case. It should be remembered that they are deduced quite independently.

The net result is that the three reigns of Senefru, Khuffu, and Kaffra may be definitely assigned to the century 3700-3600 B.C.--G.F. HARDY, in _Academy_, Oct. 29.