Greek Sculpture: High Classical Period
Guide to Sculptures of Ancient Greece During High Classicism.
Visual Arts Guide - Art of Ancient Greece

High Classical Sculpture (c.450-400 BCE)

The High Classical Style

Early Classical Greek sculpture gave way to the High Classical style around 450 BCE and the latter developed very quickly. Its end is not defined clearly, but for convenience might be put about 400 BCE, when it becomes known as Late Classical. In the face a serene detachment replaces the severity of Early Classical; anatomy becomes more accurate both generally and in particular; drapery is elaborated with a novel sense of purpose; and poses - anyhow of statues - are easier but compact. It is a style worked out with much more thorough intelligence than any of its predecessors and, judged by its standards, Early Classical works appear clumsy and both Daedalic and Archaic sculpture appears ridiculous.

In the natural rendering of bodily forms there was steady progress. This is seen at its subtlest on the trunks of figures and more obviously in such details as the eye where the upper lid soon regularly overlaps the lower, but even so some artificial conventions were maintained for the sake of ideal beauty or structural clarity. The Grecian profile for example, which is abnormal in nature, has the merit of making the nose appear an integral part of the face and not a casual excrescence, though High Classical sculptors were more compromising than their predecessors. Another major advance was in the understanding of the female anatomy, which was encouraged by the new and more revealing style of drapery. One may contrast the Nike of Paionios (c.420 BCE) with the central figure of the Ludovisi Throne (c.460 BCE) or, so far as the heavy peplos permits, the Hippodamia of the Olympia pediment (c.460 BCE).

At the same time progressive sculptors studied the effects of activity on the musculation, so giving more importance to the torso at the expense of the face. Whether for this reason or some sense of artistic propriety, facial expression of emotion becomes even rarer than in Early Classical, sometimes absurdly so. On one of the metopes of the Parthenon, which was carved as early as the 440s, the Centaur braining a Lapith has the typical High Classical look of pensive, almost melancholic detachment. Still more curious are the refined, dispassionate faces in the brothel scenes reproduced on some Arretine pots of the late first century.

The typical drapery of the Early Classical style had muffled the figure in a system of deep folds which in the main followed the line of the body and legs. If the pose was upright, the folds fell vertically; and if the pose was inclined or bent, so also most often was the direction of the folds. The effects were stately enough in standing figures, but otherwise seemed much too monotonous and restricting for High Classical sculptors, who regarded drapery as a means of explaining or emphasizing the anatomy and action of the subject. Yet though more convincing in appearance, the new arrangements were not more true to fact and they were based less on the observation of draped models than on the study of optical illusions. This is characteristic of ideal sculpture, which represents nature not as it is, but as it should be.

If one looks at the Penelope (c.460 BCE) and then at the Iris (c.435 BCE) of the west pediment of the Parthenon, both of them carved fully in the round, the forms of the Iris appear much more rounded. What produces this appearance is the arrangement of the drapery and here there are two important innovations - 'transparency' and the 'modelling line'. Transparent drapery, or more accurately drapery that clings to the figure as if it were some wet thin material, had been used for the lower parts of late Archaic korai and in the Early Classical style was attempted by the provincial sculptor of the Ludovisi Throne. But on the Iris, transparency is much more sophisticated, modelling particularly the belly and the breasts by smooth surfaces and high narrow ridges; the purpose of these ridges, incidentally, was not a sop to propriety, since paint was enough to show that the figure was clothed, but to complete the general design and also to emphasize the modelling. Whether or not transparency was suggested to High Classical sculptors by paintings, their use of the device was thoroughly sculptural.

The 'modelling line' is demonstrated very clearly by the right thigh of the Iris and also by the thighs of the gods from the frieze of the Parthenon. On the Penelope the folds of the drapery over the thighs appear more or less as straight lines, whether vertical or oblique, and the effect is flat. On the Iris and the gods of the frieze, the folds curve over at the top, as if reproducing the profile of the thigh, and this or some similar reflex of vision gives an impression of roundness in depth, an impression particularly needed in low relief.

On a few of the pedimental figures of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia there seems to be a groping attempt at this optical trick and there may be something of the sort, though less intelligently applied, in the folds over the lower part of the further leg of the right-hand attendant on the Ludovisi Throne. In a more advanced form the modelling line occurs, though infrequently, in vase painting from about the same date and so it is likely that it was invented by painters, who at that time had not developed shading and could indicate roundness and foreshortening only by linear devices. Anyhow sculptors had mastered its possibilities by the 440s and the Iris shows it in use not only on the thighs but also and more subtly on the belly and round the breasts.

Drapery streaming behind a figure makes it appear to be moving forward, but the effect is much more convincing if the lines of the drapery follow a double curve. This is obvious in the side view of the Nike of Paionios. Without the drapery the figure might appear to be balancing on one foot, with the drapery there is no doubt that it is in rapid motion. On the Nike, the 'motion line' is developed with unusual exuberance; a more modest yet effective use occurs on the left thigh of the Iris of the Parthenon, a figure which, incomplete as it is, is evidently rushing to the left. In the fourth century, acroteria from the Temple of Asklepios at Epidaurus show a curious extension of the device; a woman is riding side-saddle on a galloping horse and her skirt curves out in the direction in which the horse is moving, whether for an illogical decorative effect or perhaps, if she is about to jump off, to indicate her imminent recession relatively to the horse. Like the 'modelling line' the 'motion line' may have come to High Classical sculptors from painting.

'Catenaries' or heavy looped folds, which occur naturally in certain kinds of dress, were used from time to time on the backs of Archaic korai, but High Classical sculptors used catenaries more often and more subtly. On the figure of the Nike Balustrade who is unfastening her sandal, their points of attachment are at different heights - along the left arm and the right leg - and the effect is to bind the figure together and so give coherence and grace to a pose that in the nude would be clumsy and unbalanced. A less important High Classical use of catenaries is, as in Archaic, on the backs of standing draped statues: it is a quiet, dignified and economical way of dealing with their least interesting aspect.

Besides exploiting these special devices High Classical sculptors multiplied and varied the folds of their drapery. The normal practice in the Early Classical style had been for the folds in any major area of the dress to be of nearly equal depth and width and set at nearly equal distances from one another. This is shown most typically in such standing statues as the Charioteer of Delphi and with some modification in the later and more advanced Hippodamia of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia; and for less happy effects there is the Penelope, where the folds are closer, shallower and less regular, but lose grandeur without gaining liveliness.

In the High Classical style of Greek Sculpture, it is broadly the general composition that determines the spacing of the folds as well as their width and depth, now often much greater than before, and to avoid monotony there is more detailed variation in these particulars and also in the contours of each fold. An unfortunate consequence of this treatment of drapery is that when the crests of deep folds are broken away, as has happened often in the course of time, much of the original effect is destroyed, since the pattern of shade and light is altered and the hollows of folds that were invisible and not easily accessible now display their unfinished surfaces.

Famous Sculptors

In the figures of the pediments of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, which seemed to have been carved around 460 BCE, there are only faint intimations of the High Classical style. Within twenty-five years at the most, as the sculptures of the Parthenon demonstrate, that style had been established more or less completely.

If an individual master is needed to account for the speed and character of this development, the obvious candidate must be Phidias, whom later Greek and Roman writers and other historians of ancient art considered the greatest sculptor of the fifth century. So far few if any original works of Phidias have been identified with any probability and only one or two stylistically trustworthy copies; perhaps the so-called 'Lemnian Athena' might reproduce one of his early works, of around 450 BCE.

There is also the sculpture of the Parthenon to be considered. According to Plutarch, who wrote in the second century CE, Phidias was in general charge of the building program at Athens, and though it is not likely that he himself carved any of the architectural sculptures of the Parthenon - for one thing he was busy on the forty-foot chryselephantine cult statue that stood inside it - the general style of those sculptures suggests the influence of a single personality. The metopes, which were carved first, differ remarkably not only in the expressions and anatomical details of the figures but also in the composition of the whole, so that it is evident that both backward and modern craftsmen were employed and given only verbal instructions "Without any model or sketch; but in the frieze and the pediments the design is unified and, though the various craftsmen showed their individuality in details, their style too has a general unity. Since Phidias was at that time the dominant personality in Attic sculpture, it is likely that the style of the Parthenon reflects that of Phidias. The composition of the frieze and pediments might even be his directly.

For the character of the High Classical style it is easy to rely too much on the architectural sculptures of the Parthenon, since they form the only large body of original work of first-rate quality that has survived. There are, though, enough later pieces to show how the style developed. From financial inscriptions it follows that the metopes, frieze and pediments of the Parthenon were carved (in that order) from 447 to 432 BCE. Here the new style appears with confident clarity and strength. In the next generation there are no major innovations, but a tendency towards elegance or flamboyance. A curious minor vagary of this period is a limited revival of modified Archaic details, especially rows of snail-shell curls at the front of the hair; perhaps the aim was to give an old-fashioned venerability to static images of divinities.

The great sculptors of the High Classical style were assured and inquisitive enough to speculate about their art, and Polyclitus of Argas, who was later considered Phidias' nearest competitor, both made a statue and wrote a treatise to explain his theories. Most of the scraps which survive from the treatise are concerned with detailed arithmetical proportions for the parts of the human figure, though measurement of copies of the Doryphorus, which may have been his model statue, and of other works of the time, have not yet produced any coherent numerical system. That Polyclitus's exposition went deeper is suggested by his enigmatic remark that the sculptor's work is most difficult when the clay is in the fingernail. Even so, many of the subtleties of High Classical sculpture were hardly susceptible to theoretical analysis, for instance the adjustments of proportions and angles to correct foreshortening of the upper parts of large figures viewed from below, which some but not all contemporary masters allowed for, was already an old practice, as may be observed in the Charioteer at Delphi of about 470 BCE.

Developments

There is almost no evidence about the colouring of marble sculpture in this period, but to judge by paintings or rather vase paintings more delicate and more natural shades were used. One may expect further that the contrasts of colour were more deliberately calculated, and this too needs to be remembered when one is considering the original effect of draped and partly draped figures, as for example the Nike of Paionios. There was also an increase in the practice of leaving minor but tiresome details uncarved and simply painting them in - for instance the straps of the sandal and the feathers of the wings of the Nike of Plate; and metal accessories of course remained in use. In the treatment of bronze sculpture it is unlikely that there was any change.

As for dating, inscriptions inform us that the sculptures of the Parthenon were executed between 447 and 432 BCE, and it is reasonable to allow five years each in succession for the work on metopes, frieze and pediments. For historical reasons the Nike of Paionios should have been carved within a year or two of 420 BCE, and the architectural sculpture of the new temple at the Argive Heraeum must be later than 423, when the old one burnt down. The Caryatids of the Erechtheum at Athens were completed probably only a little before 413 and the frieze certainly between 409 and 406. Once again, these dates come from inscriptions, which for the frieze even detailed payments to particular craftsmen for particular jobs. There are besides a few precisely dated reliefs on slabs recording public decrees at Athens, but their quality is too poor to be of much help. For the rest dating is mostly by subjective comparisons of style or even more subjective inferences from historical events. Still the main trend is clear.

Very few original High Classical statues survive and none are very well preserved; but copies in Roman art are plentiful, some fair and one or two excellent in finish. There is much architectural sculpture, of which the British Museum has its share. Other reliefs too are numerous, but the quality varies. No major bronze statue has yet been found, and the general standard of figurines falls off quickly, though a few fine specimens offer consolation.

The standing male nude found a classical solution in the Doryphorus or Spear-carrier of Polyclitus, made perhaps about 440 BCE and one of the favourite subjects for copyists in Roman times. The original, which did not have the tree trunk, was of bronze and just under seven feet high, excluding the spear which rested on the left shoulder and was held in the left hand. This, as later writers make plain, was Polyclitus's most famous work and may well have been the 'canon' which was analysed in his treatise; and it is significant, both for the undifferentiated character of much Classical sculpture and for the prevalence of an aesthetic attitude to art, that this statue came to be known by a descriptive name and that we cannot tell what god, hero or man it represented.

In pose, the Doryphorus completes the development begun in the Critian Boy and continued in the Oenomaus. There, the stance had been freed, but the upper part of the body still looked stiff. Here, the whole figure has a studied ease of balance: taut right leg contrasts with slack left leg ,and conversely taut left arm with slack right arm. The median line of the figure makes a gentle double curve that continues through the face; and the axes through knees, hips, pectorals, shoulders and eyes are inclined in a sort of rotation. Though the head is turned a little to one side, the statue is still composed of four main elevations - front, two sides and back - and not only their contours but also their principal features are planned basically in a linear design. This may be one reason for the retention of the unguinal ligament, which delineates so firmly the boundary between trunk and legs.

For older males, and especially the senior gods, some drapery had long been considered proper, even when standing. The usual High Classical formulas left the chest bare (as it had been in the Zeus of the east pediment of the temple at Olympia) with the garment tucked in optimistically at the waist and sometimes one end thrown over the shoulder. The new style of drapery was of course an asset to such figures.
Standing female figures were now, so it seems, less frequent than those of standing males. Some of them have an equal easiness of pose and also take full advantage of the new effects of drapery, others because of their position or function were more restrained. So in Phidias's colossal cult statue of Athena Parthenos, which stood in the cella of the Parthenon, both the pose and the dress had a strongly vertical accent.

As their skill increased, sculptors looked for new poses or variations of old ones. Besides seated, there are now lounging figures; wounded Amazons appear and occasionally a statue is allowed to step decisively forward. One of the boldest of High Classical inventions is the monument at Olympia made by Paionios for the Messenians and Naupactians. This figure of Nike (or Victory), flying down from heaven, is of Parian marble and rather over life size. Originally it had wings, which rose behind the shoulders, its left forearm was bent slightly up-wards, and an open cloak, held by the two hands, billowed out behind to reach down on each side to about the level of the ankles. The figure is supported on a shapeless lump of stone from which an eagle's head emerges, presumably to represent cloud or perhaps sky, and this in turn rested on a slightly tapering pier, triangular in section and nearly thirty feet high. In the front view the modelling line is used with exuberant mastery, so much so that the draped right thigh looks rounder than the naked left, and in the side view the motion line has its turn; but the two views are not coordinated completely and that of the back has hardly been considered, though of course its tilt made it not very noticeable from the ground. As dress the drapery makes little sense, either in its mass or in the way it laps round the right leg without, though, affectihg the major folds; but its function was to explain and enhance the figure, and this it does admirably in the principal views, even if one has no longer the help of colour to distinguish from each other the nude parts, peplos, cloak, wings and - probably - the support.

The stone sculptures of the pediments of the Parthenon, carved within two or three years of 435 BCE were executed with remarkably detailed care and the composition has a complexity and sophistication which, so far as we know, was not even approached in any earlier or later pediment. The subjects, appropriate to a temple of Athena, are in the east the birth of that goddess and in the west her contest with Poseidon for the land of Attica. In both the action is in the centre and the movement and attention of the surrounding deities dies away towards the corners, so that there is little narrative interest to supplement the aesthetic effect and success depended on the pattern made by the crowded whole and on the excellence of particular figures and groups. Another bold novelty is the transgression of pedimental space; figures project forward beyond the frame, most noticeably in the corners of the east pediment, where the heads of horses represent the chariots of Sun and Moon, about to rise or already sunk beneath the floor of the field. Though it is obvious that the pediments of the Parthenon must have been planned in a very carefully measured design or model, close examination of the drapery suggests that the sculptors who carved the figures still had some freedom in their choice of detail.

The most important reliefs are architectural friezes and metopes, and some gravestones have an equal quality, particularly those from Athens, where carved monuments of this kind reappeared about 440 BCE. Their shape is now broad enough to take two or three figures, normally posed in some quiet domestic scene and suggesting by face and attitude no more than sympathetic resignation. Votive reliefs too become common, dedicated by private individuals to personal and often minor divinities; they are mostly of inferior workmanship, though already a few are interesting for their imitation of the three-dimensional effects of painting. There are also the small reliefs occasionally heading the texts of a public decree, but their style - sometimes old-fashioned - is usually perfunctory.

In the main, High Classical reliefs follow free-standing statuary. with of course a wider range of poses for scenes of battle or other vigorous action. Sometimes these poses have an exaggerated violence, though except in old-fashioned work the face regularly remains impassive; and sometimes, as on one of the metopes of the Parthenon, even the poses have a studied calm. For quiet compositions there are excellent examples at the east end of the frieze of the Parthenon, which was carved around 440 BCE, just after the metopes, and contrasts illuminatingly in the treatment of seated figures with the Archaic onlookers of the Siphnian Treasury. Here, as is usual in good Classical reliefs, the fully profile pose is avoided and further variety is given in the dress. One may note the bunching of material across the lap of the god at the left, a device used more emphatically on seated statues. A naturalistic detail, surprising alongside the formal arrangement of folds, is the selvedge of the hem below the left elbow of the turning figure.

Serious Classical sculptors regarded figures in relief as flattened statues rather than as cut-out paintings. In Etruria the High Classical style was too subtle and difficult for the local craftsmen and had little effect. In Lycia native potentates had employed Greek sculptors since Archaic times, often dictating the themes and sometimes in consequence the composition of reliefs: so the limestone frieze of the Heroon of Gjolbaschi (or Trysa), carved probably between 420 and 410 BCE, includes the storming of a town, with walls and buildings behind them - sometimes in partial perspective - and figures at various levels. Further east in Phoenicia there is among much else some Greek work of better quality and excellent preservation, especially from the burial vaults of the kings of Sidon: even in their old and alien culture the artistic superiority of High Classical art had now been recognized.

High Classical sculpture became at once 'classical', and during the next three centuries had a fluctuating influence on its successors. In the late second century a fully classicizing style appeared, which adapted or repeated the old formulas and sometimes so skillfully that Classicizing productions have passed and no doubt still pass for genuine works of the fifth century. At the same time straight copying too became an industry, which lasted till the fourth century CE or even longer, even though the quality is not usually better than mediocre. Many of these copies came to light again from the later fifteenth century on, but since they rarely transmitted the quiet subtlety of the High Classical style the painters and sculptors of the Renaissance turned rather to the more dramatic statuary of the Hellenistic period, and it was not till 1807, when Lord Elgin exhibited in London his collection from the Parthenon, that the quality of High Classical was recognized and almost universally appreciated. For sculptors this was too late for any effective influence, though Canova (the chief exponent of the then fashionable Neo-classical style) regretted that he had been born too late to profit by the revelation and casts were bought widely by art schools for their students to draw, as some still do. The critics too were impressed and paid at least lip service to High Classical sculpture, until in the present century the more modish of them found its character too naturalistic or too florid and saw more virtue in its provincial products, such as the Dying Niobid in Rome and especially in views not originally intended.