Abbildungen der Seite

Sokrates himself, one of the ablest minds that the world has seen, went so far as to say that the man who is good must also be beautiful, and the man who is beautiful must also be good, and would only grudgingly admit, when pressed, that it is just possible that a man who is not beautiful may be good, but that it is to be regarded altogether as an exception and not under any circumstances to be accepted as forming a basis for a rule of life.

And, after all, this statement which seems paradoxical nevertheless embodies a fundamental truth, which even we dimly realize, although most of us are far from grasping its full significance. Do we not recognize, however imperfectly, that the character within does cortrol the outer form? Are there not many faces irregularly formed, of unsatisfactory proportion, deficient in quality of contour and disposition of features, lacking in delicacy of complexion, which nevertheless are so completely transfigured by the character of the man within as to be in the truest sense beautiful? There is in my mind at the present moment the face of a great man that I once had the honour to know, that answered to none of the accepted canons of beauty with

regard to these things, and yet which I can honestly say was one of the most beautiful faces that I ever met; and such faces come within the experience of all of us. Was not Sokrates himself just such an example whose unpromising features nevertheless fascinated all who knew him because of the character shining through him, who was, as Alkibiades phrased it, like those images of Silenos which fly open to reveal the beauty of the god inside? On the other hand, as we travel about the world, are there not other faces that we meet, -admirable in proportion, excellent in contour irreproachable in disposition of features, quality of line and subtlety of complexion, from which we turn away with loathing and disgust; for they are by no means beautiful, being but empty masks concealing, or shall we say revealing, a brainless vacuity within?

It will even influence our actions. Someone asks, "Why did you not trust that man?” and we reply, “I did not like the look of him.” There is, and there ought to be, a close connection between the inner and the outer man, though we are largely blind to it, and even more or less deliberately destroy it.

Watch the child and see how he naturally expresses himself outwardly in his move

ments. Tell him to go and do something and you can see in every movement whether he is reluctant or pleased. Tell him of something that is to take place to-morrow and the whole child expresses disappointment or excitement. The child's expression may be crude and undeveloped, as are his moral faculties, but it should be trained and encouraged; instead of which, to his infinite detriment, we tend to thwart and destroy it.

Sokrates, who, we must remember, was the son of a sculptor and who for some time himself pursued that calling, tells us that it is the function of the sculptor to present the workings of the mind.* Behind this lies an important truth that is rarely grasped. It is only through the outer that the inner can express itself at all. We can never see the man within. You can never see my self, I can never see your self. All you can see is my movement, my gestures, my deeds, my actions, the expression of my face; but my self, my soul, that remains forever invisible. Nor has the soul any other means of expression. Hence it follows that it is possible for the sculptor to put into hard marble, or ivory, or gold, all of soul that it is possible to see in a living human

* Xenophon, Memorabilia, Bk. III, Cap. X.

being. He can even do more, because, like Pheidias, he can give a conception of soul far beyond that of any individual man. Pheidias embodied something in his statue of Olympic Zeus that went beyond anything that any man had been able to conceive; it was a statue, as Quintilian says,—“cujus pulchritudo adjecisse aliquid etiam receptæ religioni videtur; adeo majestas operis deum æquavit.”+ And we are told by other authors that when a man had seen it, so great was its effect that it altered the tenor of his life and he went away a changed man.

But if all this be so, if the inner can only express itself through the outer, of what paramount importance it becomes that that outer power of expression should be as beautiful as possible and how great the part that this element must play in life!

This the Athenian fully recognized, and so we may say that for him education consisted of two parts definitely related to each other, the inner and the outer, each of which, while having its own value, added to the value of the other—"Soul, which Limbs betoken, and

† Whose beauty seems even to have added something to received religion; to such an extent did the majesty of the work equal the deity.

Limbs, Soul informs," as the speaker in Browning's poem phrases it.*

And was not the Greek right; do not the words of Sappho express a truth of the profoundest significance?ο μέν γάρ κάλος, όσσον ίδην, πέλεται άγαθος ο δε καγαθος αυτίκα και καλος εσσεται.

. Hence we find an endeavour to make the youth beautiful in every way.

The Greek was essentially an artist and therefore realized that the fundamental of beauty is the artistic unity, the kosmic perfection, the organic whole. He would not judge anyone as beautiful by a topcorner, so to speak, but by the whole. The face may be the most important single element, but is only one element nevertheless, and it is the relation of part to part and of every element to the whole that makes what we mean by beauty. Hence the Greek always looked at the figure as a whole, and hence his costume was always so designed, not to be a thing in itself, but a means of setting off and revealing the beauty of the figure. For the same reason he would frequently dispense with clothes altogether and display this high

* Old Pictures in Florence.

† He who is beautiful, as far as can be discerned, is good, and he who is good will straightway also be beautiful.

« ZurückWeiter »