It may be proper here to say a word in explanation of that frank and innocent nudity which is so characteristic a trait of the best Greek art.  The Greek admiration for the masculine body and the willingness to display it were closely bound up with the extraordinary importance in Greece of gymnastic exercises and contests and with the habits which these engendered.  As early as the seventh century, if not earlier, the competitors in the foot-race at Olympia dispensed with the loin-cloth, which had previously been the sole covering worn.  In other Olympic contests the example thus set was not followed till some time later, but in the gymnastic exercises of every-day life the same custom must have early prevailed.  Thus in contrast to primitive Greek feeling and to the feeling of “barbarians” generally, the exhibition by men among men of the naked body came to be regarded as something altogether honorable.  There could not be better evidence of this than the fact that the archer-god, Apollo, the purest god in the Greek pantheon, does not deign in Greek art to veil the glory of his form.

Greek sculpture had a strongly idealizing bent.  Gods and goddesses were conceived in the likeness of human beings, but human beings freed from eery blemish, made august and beautiful by the artistic imagination.  The subjects of architectural sculpture were mainly mythological, historical scenes being very rare in purely Greek work; and these legendary themes offered little temptation to a literal copying of every-day life.  But what is most noteworthy is that even in the representation of actual human persons, e.g., in athlete statues and upon grave monuments, Greek sculpture in the best period seems not to have even aimed at exact portraiture.  The development of realistic portraiture belongs mainly to the age of Alexander and his successors.

Mr. Ruskin goes so far as to say that a Greek “never expresses personal character,” and “never expresses momentary passion.” [Footnote:  “Aratra Pentelici,” Lecture VI, Section 191, 193.] These are reckless verdicts, needing much qualification.  For the art of the fourth century they will not do at all, much less for the later period.  But they may be of use if they lead us to note the preference for the typical and permanent with which Greek sculpture begins, and the very gradual way in which it progresses toward the expression of the individual and transient.  However, even in the best period the most that we have any right to speak of is a prevailing tendency.  Greek art was at all times very much alive, and the student must be prepared to find exceptions to any formula that can be laid down.

CHAPTER V.

The archaic period of Greek sculpture.  First half:  625 (?)-550 B.C.

The date above suggested for the beginning of the period with which we have first to deal must not be regarded as making any pretense to exactitude.  We have no means of assigning a definite date to any of the most primitive-looking pieces of Greek sculpture.  All that can be said is that works which can be confidently dated about the middle of the sixth century show such a degree of advancement as implies more than half a century of development since the first rude beginnings.