Metropolitan Museum – Plaster – Casts And Models

THE foundation of the Collection of Casts, which has become one of the largest in the world, was laid by Levi Hale Willard, himself deeply interested in architecture, who bequeathed in 1883 a large sum for ” the purchase of a collection of models, casts, photographs, and other objects illustrative of the art and science of architecture.” It took ten years to carry out the plans which had been adopted, the result being that now there is a rich assortment of casts of architectural details of all styles and periods, in which is apparent that Sculpture ever was the handmaiden of Architecture. Of great interest are the complete models of architectural masterpieces of four different periods. These are the great Hypostyle Hall at Karnak, the most imposing example of Egyptian temple construction ; the Parthenon, the crowning glory of the Akropolis ; the Pantheon, the most beautiful type of Roman Architecture; and the marvellous model of the Cathedral of Notre Dame at Paris, the ideal of Gothic Architecture, admirable for its delicacy of sculpture and for its architectural detail.

These models will serve the purpose of indicating the development of architecture in its distinctive types. Egyptian architecture came from India, where possibly the earliest inhabitants were Himalayan troglodytes, or cave dwellers. When their art was transported to Egypt, it was repeated in the pyramids to simulate the mountain peaks, and in the low, cavernous stone temples of Abou Simbel and Karnak. The Greeks borrowed their architecture from Egypt, but their purer art and freer spirit lightened and idealized it. They changed the dark granite to white marble; they made the roofs loftier and lighter, the columns more slender; and they substituted the volute of a shell and the acanthus leaf for the lotos capital. The Romans, who invented nothing, a nation of robbers, having ravished every country of its wealth and art, took the Greek styles in architecture, as they took the Greek mythology in religion, and made them both more gross and more simple. The Roman builders eliminated the oval and epicycloid curves of Greek architecture, and put in their places the arcs of circles, while they reduced the refined sociability of the Greek Olympus to the level of a bagnio.

Gothic architecture came at a time when the world after a long period of darkness was awakening to new life. By substituting the vertical for the horizontal line of the Greeks it showed the aspiration of new life and the struggle of the spirit of the Northern nations among which it took its rise and found its active development.

President Marquand initiated, in 1886, the gathering of the collection of Sculptural Casts, to which various benefactors at times contributed, the Cullom collection and the John Taylor Johnston Memorial collection forming no inconsiderable part of the whole.

This section gives now a survey in plaster of the entire history of Sculpture, and is, for object of study, the most systematically arranged of all the Museum collections. It starts with Egyptian art, and leads through Oriental art up to Greek and Roman art in all their successive periods. From a few early Christian, and Byzantine, and Saracenic examples we proceed to Gothic art in its French, Italian, German, Flemish, English and Spanish manifestations. Renaissance art is abundantly illustrated both in architecture and ornament, and in sculpture. A few casts of modern sculpture conclude this exhaustive survey.

Among the examples of Egyptian art we find those of the pure Egyptian type — sculpture in relief of scenes of daily life, and in the round of royal portrait statues. The occupation of Egypt by the Persians under Cambyses, in the 6th century B. c., did not seriously affect its art expression, the strong national prejudice against all religious sculpture maintaining itself, until militated by Greek influences, when we find statuettes of Osiris and Isis. While throughout the changes which took place the national peculiarity of style maintained its definite character, we notice from the high finish and more careful execution of the works of the time that the height of Egyptian art is found in the XV Dynasty, during the reign of Rameses — who seems to be the same as the Sesostris of the Greeks — about 1350 B. C. Afterwards the national spirit became broken, and the energies of the people were irretrievably paralyzed.

Although the catalogue of this department — which is a monument of accuracy and research — places the Oriental section, Chaldean, Assyrian and Persian sculpture, next in order, it must not be sup-posed that the art of these people had a later development than that of Egypt. Indeed the Chaldean exhibits antedate the Egyptian by a thousand years, and are the earliest known examples of the iconic art. The Assyrian reliefs found in the ruins of the palace of Ashur-nasir-pal, King of Assyria (885-86o B. c.), indicate, however, the great improvement which Egyptian influence exercised over an art which up to that time had never been successful — more fixed than progressive. The Persian examples are still later, and reveal a step forward in the matter of drapery and an attempt to conventionalize movement in the figures.

The Greek mind perceived the capability of development of the art, which became recognized as a most powerful esthetic influence. In the section devoted to Greek and Roman sculpture we find an unbroken record from the earliest prehistoric examples to the ultimate decay in the 4th century A. D..

In the first archaic monuments of the Aeginetan school we find the proportion of the figures short, the waists remarkably contracted, the extremities large and heavy, the legs and feet in profile while the figures front; the hair is long and formal, falling over the shoulders; the face always laughing. The earliest Doric style is most severe, the male figure is nude and the female draped. In the Ionic style the figures lose more of their rigid attitude, and the richer complication of drapery becomes more apparent. The Attic style presents even elegance in drapery, grace of gesture, and delicacy of finish, as seen in the series of draped female statues on the Akropolis of Athens. Owing to remnants of paint on these statues, they have not been cast, and there are unfortunately no examples in the collection.

The earliest extant statue of the goddess of Victory, Nike, from the island of Delos (Cast 351), is of the early 6th century B. C. One of the Branchiday sculptures (Nos. 353-356) is inscribed with the name of Terpsicles, which probably supplies the name of the sculptor — a rare opportunity to make an attribution. The sculptures of the Pediments of the Temple at Aegina (dating about 490 B. C.), most of warriors, afford some instructive and interesting details of costume. The heads are still of the archaic type. However earnestly engaged, and even when wounded and dying, each warrior has a smiling expression, the mouth being slightly open—as though the occupation of slaying and being slain was of the most pleasing and satisfactory nature. The hair is worked with the utmost care, ending on the forehead in small curls and knobs. In the Attic style are various heads, and a terra cotta relief, ” The Birth of Erichthonios,” truly characteristic.

In the transitional period, from about 480 B. C. to 450 B. C., the Greek arts commenced to liberate themselves from archaic shackles. The country it-self was awakening to national individualism after the Persian wars had been successfully concluded, and art shared the impetus. It began to show the way to the golden age in freer spirit. The value of an improved standard of form became recognized. Although scarcely yet sufficiently truthful the statue approximated more nearly to beauty and delicacy. The Greek commenced to recognize sculpture as an imitative art, while heretofore it seems to have been considered little other than symbolical. Most of the casts in this section are from Roman copies, the originals being lost.

The most interesting exhibit are the groups from the two pediments of the temple of Zeus at Olympia. These statues were found in a mutilated condition and with many parts missing. The casts show them complete, as restored. The decoration of the metopes of the friezes illustrate the twelve labours of Herakles. Five of these are cast.

The Great, or Hellenic, period of Greek art may be considered to run from 450 to 380 B. C. It was the period of Athenian ascendency, the age of Pericles. The Parthenon is the monument which preserves the genius of Pheidias, for although it is not supposed that he himself executed its sculptures, his influence dominated the passionless majesty, the largeness and grandeur in the masses, and the highest type of beauty in the forms, which characterize such parts of the pedimental groups, of the metopes, and of the frieze of the cella, which have been preserved.

The chryselephantine (gold and ivory) statue of Athene, which Pheidias himself made for the interior of the Parthenon, is lost, but many copies have been made which suggest the original. The most popular of the Athene statues is the ” Minerva Medici ” (cast 567) which may come nearest to the original.

Sculptures from other temples in Attica and elsewhere show the elements of excellence by which the Pheidian school carried Greek art to a perfection which made its best products unrivalled.

Polykleitos of Argos and Myron of Athens were fellow-pupils with Pheidias of Ageladas, and they contributed most to this condition. Pliny says that Myron was not considered successful in expressing sentiment or passion, and that in his art treatment there was much of the stiffness of the early schools. A Roman copy of his famous Diskobolos does not bear out the ancient critic. The statue is full of action, even to exaggeration. There is a peculiar expression, very true to nature, given in the dragging of the left leg, or rather foot, of which the toes are bent, showing their underside.

The ancient critics regarded the works of Polykleitos with greater favour, Cicero admitting them to be of a higher quality — ” indeed, well-nigh perfect.” His work is noted for the great care and perfection of its finish, but the frequent repetition of the same attitude in his statues detracts some-what of high encomium. His ” Doryphoros,” or Lance-bearer, is so perfect in its proportions that Pliny already referred to it as a rule or standard f art. A ” Head of Kronos,” the so-called ” Borthese Achilles,” and a large number of grave monuments belong to this period.

The school of Praxiteles, Skopas, and Lysippos is distinguished from the Pheidian school in that sculpture addressed itself more directly to the senses by more voluptuous execution. The aim was not so much to elevate and instruct as to please, whereby the art left its higher and noble purpose. There was greater prominence given to exquisite manipulation. Praxiteles was the first to carve the female nude. Skopas excelled in the rendering of passionate emotion. Lysippos was eminent for his greater elegance. He it was of whom it was said : ” Others show men as they are, he as they appear to be.” There was much attention paid to characteristic detail. In this period the first portrait statues are found, while those of the deities have no longer the impersonality and immutability of the Pheidian age, but assume human characteristics.

His ” Hermes,” and the ” Aphrodite of Knidos,” with its harmonious rhythm of lines and subtle flow of contours, are the most famous examples of Praxiteles — although the Venus is only one of many copies that had been made of his original„ which was burned in Constantinople in the 5th century. The ” Satyr,” which inspired Hawthorne’s Marble Faun, is probably also from his hand, and it may be a copy of the work concerning which Pausanias tells us the following story. Phryne, a beautiful courtesan, and his favourite model, was desirous to possess a work of Praxiteles, and when she was permitted by the sculptor to make a choice she used a stratagem to discover which sculpture the master himself prized highest. One day she sent a servant in haste to the sculptor to tell him that his workshop was in flames, and Praxiteles rushed out, exclaiming that ” all was lost if his Satyr and Cupid were not saved.” Phryne chose the Cupid, which is now lost, although an adaptation of this statue, called the ” Eros of the Vatican ” (cast 704), made a few centuries later, gives an idea what it must have been.

The ” Apollo Sauroktonos,” a youthful Apollo in the act of killing a lizard, is a composition of agreeable lines, great purity of form, and appropriate expression, but can hardly have been a faithful copy, since it is scarcely of so full and rich a character as might be expected in a work by Praxiteles.

Of the celebrated group “Niobe and her Children,” in the Uffizi of Florence, Niobe and her youngest daughter are shown. This is in the style of Klopas, but probably cast from a poor copy. The ” Colossal Female Head ” (cast 724) may possibly be a fragment of the original Niobe, since it is markedly superior.

Lysippos, of Sicyon, worked chiefly if not entirely in bronze, and is said by Pliny to have executed as many as six hundred and ten statues. He united all the necessary attention to characteristic details with that generalization which constitutes a fine style. The estimate in which he was held by Alexander the Great is voiced by Pliny, who tells us that ” Alexander issued an edict that no artist but Apelles should paint him, Pyrgoteles engrave gems of him, or Lysippos make statues in brass (bronze) of him.”

The ” Apoxyomenos,” a youth scraping his body with a strygil, is the only work in the collection which is supposed to be originally by Lysippos, although in the section of the Hellenistic period, further on, there is a cast of a small bronze ” Herakles with the Apple of the Hesperides ” (cast 840) which many authorities think it not improbable to be an original work of this great master.

Sculptures from the Temple of Artemis, at Ephesos, and from the Mausoleum at Halikarnassos — the magnificent tomb erected by Artemisia in memory of her husband Mausolus of Caria — belong to this period.

The “Venus of Melos,” of the Louvre, is placed also in this section, although its unknown author belongs more properly to the later Hellenistic period.

This Hellenistic period, from the death of Alexander the Great (323 B. C.) to the fall of Egypt (30 B. C.), is the last period of Greek sculpture, and did not preserve the impress of genius, the seal of true and original impulse. Decline became gradually manifest by mannerism instead of style, by imitation, or bad innovation. It was no longer a true Hellenic age. Asia Minor had risen in political importance over Athens; and the schools of Pergamon, Ephesos, and Rhodes overshadowed the minor Grecian artists,

The most noteworthy monument of the school of Pergamon is ” The Dying Gaul,” formerly called ” The Dying Gladiator,” which is in the Capitolene Museum of Rome. The ” Nike of Samothrake,” the ” Apollo of the Belvedere,” the ” Torso of the Belvedere,” — a fragment of a statue of Herakles, by Apollonios of Athens (first century B. C.),— the ” Laokoon Group ” of the second century B. C., and the ” Borghese Warrior,” by Agasias of Ephesos, are the most famous remains of the Hellenistic period, and show yet the late continuance of a school of good sculpture, A large number of other casts, however, elucidate the statements made concerning the weakening of artistic grasp, although accompanied by consummate skill and fertility of invention.

The Roman period of the first four centuries A. D. declares an absence of ideal beauty. There is no refinement of selection, on the other hand unconcentrated composition, without grandeur of design in mass and breadth.

Rome had conquered Greece, still Hellenism imposed its culture on the conquerors. But not in the vigorous, independent manner as of yore — the transplanted art had the stamp of servitude. Only in that which became distinctly Roman its sculptors excelled, that is in the glorification of Roman conquests, and the realistic portraiture intended to flatter the self-esteem of their leaders.

The largest and most typical product of the Augustan age is not represented here, possibly owing to the difficulty of casting a complicated group of a straggling character of design. This is the ” Toro Farnese,” in marble, and now in the Borbonico of Naples. It represents Zethus and Amphion tying Dirce to the horns of a wild bull. The three principal figures are of heroic size, with the rearing and infuriated animal forming the apex of the composition. The forms are of a fine general type, the heads are treated in the manner of the best schools, and the drapery of Dirce, which covers the figure from the hips downward, is in a good style. Although Winckelman ascribed it to the school of Lysippos, it is more probably a Roman work with Greek imitations, for none of the ancient writers mentions this important group, which is the most extensive work in marble known.

The talent of the artists of this age is shown in the busts and statues of the Emperors, especially in the statue of the favourite Antinous (cast 984). But after the glories of Greece even these form an insipid aftermath.

The most important part of this section is formed by the reproductions of the bronze sculptures found in the famous villa at Herculaneum. These bronzes were excellently preserved, because Herculaneum was deeply buried under mud at the first eruption of Vesuvius, the hot lava covering the locality at later eruptions. These bronzes are all of the Roman period, except the archaic head of Apollo (No. 1021) and the bust of a youth (No. 1037). Most of the busts are portraits, while the statues are Roman copies of Greek work.

Reproductions of a large number of statuettes and other small objects, from the archaic to the Roman periods, are displayed, the most noted being the famous ” Portland Vase,” in which the figures of the relief are cut in cameo style from a thin coating of white biscuit laid over the dark blue glass of the vase itself.

The large Central Hall contains a number of casts of architectural details, such as capitals of pillars, cornices, antefixes, waterspouts, mouldings, etc. The ” Porch of the Maidens,” of the Erechtheion from the Akropolis, is of great interest. The model of the Pantheon is also found here, as well as the model of the Arch of Constantine. The Pantheon was first built by the Consul Marcus Agrippa, in 27 B. C., and entirely reconstructed by the Emperor Hadrian in 120-124 A. D. The model of the building is as it has been generally accepted by archaeologists, with exception of the sculptures, which are introduced to suggest the general appearance of the original temple.

There are but few remnants of the Art of the Middle Ages. Some carvings of the fifth century, of early Christian art, and of the later developed Byzantine art, and architectural details in the so-called Romanesque section bring us to the birth of the Gothic, rich in its decorative carving and sculpture. Cathedrals, churches, palaces and public buildings were adorned, all with a distinct aim, which was the cause of the growth, but also of the ultimate sterility of art — the service of the Church. The earliest sculpture presents a character of extreme rudeness and coarseness. Its application alone gave it value among the simple and primitive Christian flock. It received a sort of superstitious veneration from an uncultivated population which resented any innovations. An interesting example of this Mediaeval art is a cast of the famous cross of Muiredach, at Monasterboice, in Ireland, one of, the finest examples of this class of Celtic sculpture. The shaft is divided into compartments which contain sculptured figures or animals, and symbolical tracery. It dates probably from about the tenth century A. D.

The first artist whose works arrest attention for the real art feeling they exhibit is Niccolo Pisano, whose pulpit in the Siena Cathedral (cast 1810) is the best representation of his varied talents. A sculptor of considerable power was Andrea Orcagna, who executed various works in Florence in the middle of the fourteenth century. Some of these are still preserved in the small chapel or oratory of Or San Michele, and justify the praise that has been accorded to this artist. His style partook of the dry and minute character of the early school, but he was superior to many of his contemporaries in his bolder treatment of drapery (see cast 1802 A.).

Not until the 15th century do we find a Renaissance of artistic invention and individual conception. The manner in which Renaissance architecture and ornament developed in the various countries of Europe presents a fascinating study. Each style originated in the various operations of natural conditions, with an evolution of its own, dominated by local or racial conditions. Reason and commonsense, usefulness as well as the decorative instinct, were the factors. But when these were neglected – when an arbitrary decree of fashion, or the development of a new fanciful taste became the criterion by which buildings were judged — architecture fell.

The casts of the Renaissance Sculpture are as complete as those of the Greeks, although the arrangement is not nearly as systematic. A great advantage, however, is found in the grouping of the works of each artist as near together as practicable.

Taking an historical survey we must first notice the work of Lorenzo Ghiberti (1378-1455), whose gates of the Baptistery at Florence (cast 2306) form one of the most remarkable productions in sculpture, which Michelangelo is said to have declared, that they were ” worthy to be the gates of Paradise.” It is no wonder that this work should have produced a great impression at the time it was executed, for it seemed to be the sudden opening of an entirely new treatment of sculpture. The subjects are biblical scenes, in re-lief, the conception bordering on mysticism. The arrangement is picturesque, with bold originality of design, appropriate expression in the figures, beauty of forms, and especially the graceful arrangement and flow of the draperies.

This work is so exceptional that it may be permitted to point out a few of the defects which make it fall short of pure sculpture. The number of small parts and of unimportant details, and the crowding together of figures, trees and shrubs, and animals tend to confuse the composition and disturb the attention. It is inclined to the dangerous tendency to show executive power — a not uncommon ambition in inexperienced sculptors. Ghiberti also fell into the error of transcending the limits of sculpture, which has to do only with form, in an endeavour to show perspective by remote, diminishing figures and retiring scenery. It is easy to recognize in this the influence of the orefici or goldsmiths, who demanded such minute details in the embellishment of caskets, cups, etc. To apply this to larger works made Ghiberti fall short of perfection. Vasari gives an entertaining account of the competition among sculptors for the design of these doors in which the youthful Ghiberti was victorious.

While in this Central Court attention should be called to the large collection of photographs of architectural and sculptural subjects which are placed in cases on the floor for free examination and study, and from which the visitor may derive much pleasure and profit.

The next sculptor who claims our attention is Donatello (1386-1466). His work extends from relievo stiacciato, or bassissimo relievo, in which the delicate effect of drawing pure and simple is united with the finely graduated tones of modelling, to the monumental equestrian statue of Gattamelata, the Venetian General, which stands in the Piazza del Santo, Padua (cast 2281). In his statues there appears a degree of exaggeration and mannerism, which may have been caused by his desire to avoid the timid and undecided execution of the earlier artists, and so far it is an indication of original power. This occurs chiefly in the bendings of the wrists, and in the articulations of the bones. His ” Judith and Holofernes is a case in point, al-though this melodramatic tendency may also be seen in his ” St. George ” (cast 2283) and his “David with the Head of Goliath ” (cast 2286). His relief of ” Children Dancing,” in the Galleria, Florence, is one of his most effective reliefs.

Of Brunelleschi (1377-1446), the architect of the Pitti Palace, and Donatello’s chum, there is a fair relief (cast 2252). The work of Jacopo della Quercia (1374-1438) should be studied, as he, with Ghiberti and Donatello formed the triumvirate which dominated the art of the first half of the 15th century.

The Della Robbias, Luca (1400-1482), and Andrea (1435-1525) are famous for their religious groups in high relief. They covered the terra cotta throughout with a lustrous glaze, of their own invention, parts of the figures being more or less coloured. Many of their compositions are enclosed in a framework of elaborate design, consisting of fruits and flowers, gracefully entwined and bound together by ribbons, which are inscribed with mot-toes or texts. Usually these are coloured black, blue, green and yellow, in a conventional manner, with-out any thought of naturalness. Luca’s Organ Gallery (cast 2371) still remains the finest and most characteristic of his achievements, while Andrea’s Annunciation ” (cast 2359) has never been treated with greater loveliness or charm.

Andrea Verrocchio (1436-1488) is the author of several works preserved at Florence. He is not only distinguished for having been the teacher of Leonardo da Vinci, and of Pietro Perugino, the master of Raphael — for he applied himself to painting in his earlier years but his sculptures possess great strength, a large style, and a bold use of the human form, though at the sacrifice of ‘feeling. His equestrian statue of the Venetian General Colleoni (cast 2398) rivals that of Donatellohorse and rider seem actually alive and in movement. His ” Boy with a Fish ” (cast 2400) is our first introduction to the realistic type of child.

The most powerful genius of this period was Michelangelo (1475-1564). His broad and simple lines give solidity and force with vigorous invention. The artistic power of this great master effected a total revolution in style, which has stamped his art with a character exclusively its own, and which has been happily and expressively termed ” di Michel Agnol’ la terribil’ via.” Rude and unpleasing as his figures sometimes may be, they are never petty or ordinary; and in the essential qualities of sculpture, equilibrium, justness of movement, the exact balance of the masses, order, he is absolutely classic, the most classic of all modern masters.

The ” Pieta ” (cast 2322) is the only work which he signed, because when completed it was ascribed to Christoforo Solari, a Lombard sculptor. The group abounds with the deepest pathos, and displays the most perfect alliance between art and Christianity. It is the boundary stone of the Quattrocento. Its devotional spirit marks its connection with the art of the past, while its anatomical precision and masterly treatment connect it with that of the future. Carved when Michelangelo was twenty-four years old, it signalizes the first stage of his development. The ” Moses ” (cast 2316) and the ” Bound Captives ” (casts 2317, 2318) were designed for the tomb of Pope Julius II. The Moses has a grandiose aspect, expressing a majestic calm, and breathing the authority of him who has talked alone with God within the clouds on Sinai. Of the Captives, the sleeping prisoner may be said to fix the master’s standard of masculine beauty. The ” Medici Tombs ” (casts 2314, 2315) beggar description. It is idle to apply here the rigid rules of realism. The attitudes are distorted and almost impossible, and yet one is overwhelmed with the thought that in the four figures, Night and Day, Evening and Dawn, he is con-fronted with the weight of the unexplained mystery of life. It is even to be questioned whether the apparently unfinished condition was not intentional, even as they are they convey the thought of the violent struggles of humanity, oft unsolved and uncompleted. The statues of Giuliano and of Lorenzo are interpretations of character, particularly of Lorenzo, Il Pensieroso — they represent the art of sculpture carried to its highest pitch of grandeur.

His contemporary Sansovino (1486-1570) shows already the coming decadence. His ” Faun and Bacchus ” (cast 2429) is a little weak in style and affected in expression, but still showing a refined feeling for form and great delicacy of execution.

Benvenuto Cellini, (1500-1571), the goldsmith and sculptor, indicates still further the trend of art. His ” Perseus beheading Medusa ” (cast 2256) is theatrical to a degree. The figure is heroic size, entirely naked, but having on its head the picturesque winged helmet of Hermes, and the falaria, or wings, are attached by sandals to his ankles. In his left hand, stretched out before him, he holds the bleeding head of Medusa, whose body is lying at his feet ; in the other he grasps the peculiarly formed falchion or sword, called by the Greeks harpe. Although the figures are over-charged, the work is bold in conception and has power of execution.

Giovanni da Bologna (1529-1608) is the only sculptor of considerable note, who shows the decline of sculpture at the end of the 16th century by its love of display, a desire to astonish by bold and skilful ingenuity, and a preference for the mechanical above the nobler objects of the art. Fertile imagination, uncontrolled, gave a tendency to florid and insincere treatment. Giovanni’s statue of Mercury, in the Bargello, Florence, (cast 2422), is conceived in the true spirit of poetry. The action is buoyant and full of energy, and the form light and graceful. It may be added that the mode of indicating that the god is borne by the winds — one foot being supported by expanding rays (but very material, and like a bundle of sticks) issuing from the puffed-out cheeks, or rather mouth, of a zephyr, whose head only is shown — is a conceit quite in keeping with the fancy of the age. This bravura of style came to its culmination in Bernini, whose ” Apollo and Daphne ” goes beyond the limits of true art. But neither this nor other works of the decadence are shown.

The man who a century and a half later might have rescued Italian sculpture from the Bernini influence was Antonio Canova (1757-1822). His ” Theseus ” and his ” Daedalus and Icarus ” gave promise of a return to classic example, but he appears gradually to have been seduced from his early simplicity by the fascination of highly-wrought execution. The original plaster model of his ” Cupid and Psyche ” (No. 2438) is preserved here.

Turning from Italian sculpture we should notice the work of Jean Goujon (1510-1572), of France. His style was evidently founded on the mixed principles of the Italian school of the time, but his talent was great enough to stamp him as ” the first modern French sculptor.” His reliefs of the ” Innocents Fountain ” (cast 2485 A-D) are superbly sculptural — by no means arabesques, like much of Renaissance relief. His ” Diana and the Stag,” whereof the head of Diana is shown (cast 2284) is fine in line and expression.

Another French sculptor whose works illustrate the Franco-Italian style was Germain Pilon (1535-1590). His chameleon-like imitativeness evinces a lack of personal force, although his work is always graceful and decorative (casts 2494-2498).

Of the 18th century French sculptors we must single out Houdon (1741-1828). One of the works on which his fame chiefly rests is his unequalled statue of Voltaire, the head of which is reproduced (cast 2506). It shows a masterly combination of strength with style; the physiognomy, the pose are marvellously characteristic.

Casts from the works of German sculptors, none of great significance, and a few Flemish examples, conclude this survey of sculpture up to the 19th century.