Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 48.djvu/604

562* The contempt felt by the Romans for every other occupation than the military, and the consequent contempt for art and artists imported from conquered peoples, resulted in the fact that in the time of the Cæsars sculptors and painters "were generally either slaves or freedmen." Probably the only concern the priests had with sculpture was when prescribing the mode in which this or that god should be represented.

Such records as have come down to us from early Christian times illustrate the general law of evolution in the respect that they show how little the arts of design were at first specialized. It has been often remarked that in days comparatively modern, separation of the various kinds of mental activity was much less marked than it has since become: instance the fact that Leonardo da Vinci was man of science as well as artist; instance the fact that Michael Angelo was at once poet, architect, sculptor and painter. This union of functions seems to have been still more the rule in preceding ages. Evidence about the sculptors' art is mingled with evidence about kindred arts. Says Emeric-David—"The same masters were goldsmiths, architects, painters, sculptors, and sometimes poets, as well as being abbots or even bishops." We are told by Challamel that the industrial art by pre-eminence was gold-working. The great artists in it were monks or at least clerics. The great schools of it were monasteries. And it was for the use of churches—ecclesiastical vestments and decorations, funeral monuments, etc.

In the last part of this statement we see the implication that the sculpturing of figures on monuments was a priestly occupation. This is also implied by the statement of Emeric-David that In the 10th cent. Hugues, monk of Monstier-en-Der, was painter and statuary. Further proof that miscellaneous art-works were carried on by the clerical class is given by Lacroix and Seré, who say that early in the 11th cent, a monk, named Odoram, executed shrines and crucifixes in gold and silver and precious stones. In the middle of the century another monk, Theophilus, was at once painter of manuscripts, glass-stainer, and enameling goldsmith.

Concerning these relationships in England during early days, I find no evidence. The first relevant statements refer to times in which the plastic arts, which no doubt were all along shared in by those lay-assistants who did the rough work under clerical direction—such as chiseling out monuments in the rough according to order—had lapsed entirely into the hands of these layassistants. Having been in the preceding times nothing but skillful artisans, their work, when it came to be monopolized by them, was for a long time regarded as artisan-work. Hence the statement that—