[117]. The original reads: “(So ist jede Art von Verstehen ... nur dadurch möglich ...) dass ein Begriffspaar von innerem Gegensatz gewissermassen durch Auseinandertreten erst Wirklichkeit erhält.”—Tr.
[118]. At this point the German text repeats the paragraph which in this edition begins at “But inquiry” (p. 121) and ends at the close of section I (p. 121).—Tr.
[119]. See Vol. II, pp. 137, 159.
[120]. Here the author presumably means history in the ordinary acceptation of the word.—Tr.
[121]. Œd. Rex., 642. κακῶς εἴληφα τοὐμὸν σῶμα σὺν[κακῶς εἴληφα τοὐμὸν σῶμα σὺν] τέχνῃ κακῇ. (Cf. Rudolf Hirsch, Die Person (1914), p. 9.)
[122]. Œd. Col., 355. μαντεῖα ... ἃ[ἃ] τοῦδ’ ἐχρήσθη σώματος.
[123]. Choëphoræ, 710. ἐπὶ ναυάρχῳ σώματι ... τῷ βασιλείῳ.
[124]. Phidias, and through him his patron Pericles, were attacked for alleged introduction of portraits upon the shield of Athene Parthenos. In Western religious art, on the contrary, portraiture was, as everyone knows, a habitual practice. Every Madonna, for instance, is more or less of a portrait.
With this may be compared again the growing resistance of Byzantine art, as it matured, to portraiture in sacred surroundings, evidenced for instance in the history of the nimbus or halo—which was removed from the insignia of the Prince to become the badge of the Saint—in the legend of the miraculous effacement of Justinian’s pompous inscription on Hagia Sophia, and in the banishment of the human patron from the celestial part of the church to the earthly.—Tr.
[125]. Who was criticized as “no god-maker but a man-maker” and as one who spoilt the beauty of his work by aiming at likeness.