{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_42371/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_42371","id":"gutenberg_42371","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42371","summary":null,"tags":["Aesthetics","Art","Art and society -- Greece","Art patronage -- Great Britain","Art patronage -- Greece","Arts, British","Arts, Greek","Category: Art","Category: History - European","Category: Philosophy & Ethics"],"text":"Transcriber's note:\n\n      Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).\n\n\n\n\n\nThe Augustan Reprint Society\n\nJOHN ROBERT SCOTT\n\nDISSERTATION ON THE PROGRESS OF THE FINE ARTS\n\nWith an Introduction by Roy Harvey Pearce\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPublication Number 45\n\nLos Angeles\nWilliam Andrews Clark Memorial Library\nUniversity of California\n1954\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\nGENERAL EDITORS\n\nRICHARD C. BOYS, _University of Michigan_\nRALPH COHEN, _University of California, Los Angeles_\nVINTON A. DEARING, _University of California, Los Angeles_\nLAWRENCE CLARK POWELL, _Clark Memorial Library_\n\n\nASSISTANT EDITOR\n\nW. EARL BRITTON, _University of Michigan_\n\n\nADVISORY EDITORS\n\nEMMETT L. AVERY, _State College of Washington_\nBENJAMIN BOYCE, _Duke University_\nLOUIS BREDVOLD, _University of Michigan_\nJOHN BUTT, _King's College, University of Durham_\nJAMES L. CLIFFORD, _Columbia University_\nARTHUR FRIEDMAN, _University of Chicago_\nEDWARD NILES HOOKER, _University of California, Los Angeles_\nLOUIS A. LANDA, _Princeton University_\nSAMUEL H. MONK, _University of Minnesota_\nERNEST C. MOSSNER, _University of Texas_\nJAMES SUTHERLAND, _University College, London_\nH. T. SWEDENBERG, JR., _University of California, Los Angeles_\n\n\nCORRESPONDING SECRETARY\n\nEDNA C. DAVIS, _Clark Memorial Library_\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nScott's \"Dissertation on the Progress of the Fine Arts\" embodies what we\ncan now see as a final development in his century's deep concern to\nunderstand why what it so often admitted was the greatest art had\nsomehow not been forthcoming in what it as often claimed was the\ngreatest century. The \"Dissertation\" is in no way an original work;\nrather--and this is its primary value for us--its author takes a belief\nwhich his culture has given him and, like others before him, tries to\nclarify one of its implications. The belief is in the idea of a\nuniversal progress marred, if it in the end can be said to be marred,\nonly by an esthetic primitivism; the implication is that that esthetic\nprimitivism can be not only comprehended but surmounted. Scott accepts\nthe century's commonplace that art of power and significance has been\nnecessarily produced only in societies markedly simpler than his own;\nand he accepts too the fact (for such it was when men believed in it and\njudged according to the principles generated by it) that in all forms of\nculture excepting art, his own richly complex society has produced\nsomething far surpassing anything produced in the \"simpler\" society of\nclassical Greece or of the Italian Renaissance. Scott's uniqueness is\nthat, unlike those of his predecessors who had worked with the same\nbelief, he does not try to establish an historical rationale for this\n_status quo_. He goes so far as to envisage--perhaps it would be truer\nto his state of mind to say posit--an enlightened modern society which\nwill at once remain what it is and yet so change itself as to make\npossible the production of major art.\n\nThe main interest for us in the \"Dissertation,\" then, lies in Scott's\nnotions of the kind of society needed to produce major art, and beyond\nthat, in what is entailed in holding fast to that notion, developing it\ninto a doctrine, and even hoping to make it a reality in his own time.\nHe outlines the doctrine in great detail, simply by describing what he\ntakes to be the sociocultural situation of the classical Greek artist\n(and incidentally, that of the artist of the Italian Renaissance). He\nchooses to write almost entirely of the fine arts (for him in this case,\nsculpture), although he conceives, as the student of his age would\nexpect him to, that what holds for the fine arts will also hold for\npoetry. In the immediacy of appeal of sculpture, he finds a quality\nwhich, when its working and expression are analysed, will let him see\njust how the artist and his work have been ideally related to the\nsociety in which they have flourished.\n\nScott's description of the artist and his place in Greek society is one\nwhich, in general, is familiar to students of eighteenth-century\ncritical theory. Equally familiar is his concern to establish the fact\nthat, as he puts it, \"the connate temper of the times\" made possible the\nproduction of great art. He sees Greek art as being authentically marked\nby the \"rich raciness of the native soil.\" And he sees Greek society as\nin all departments making the work of the artist possible. In small,\nfree, uncentralized states; in states where art has a public, memorial\nfunction; in states where, because so many games and rituals are\nperformed naked, the artist is always directly and overwhelmingly aware\nof the possibility of beauty in the human body--in such states, owing to\nsuch \"natural causes,\" art must necessarily flourish. Above all, art is\nof the people and their artists as they form a vital community; it is\nnot borrowed; it is fresh and original. Finally, such a cultural\nsituation, and therefore such an art, is found obviously to be lacking\nin his own time.\n\nNow this argument, carried up to this point, had been more or less\nheld to by many critics and literary theorists before Scott.[1] True\nenough, they had mainly concerned themselves with poetry; yet they\nfound the source of major poetry to be ultimately in a nakedness\nof language--made possible by what was taken to be the simplicity,\nspontaneity, and cohesion of Greek life--comparable to Scott's notion of\nnakedness of body. They differ from Scott in this: that almost\nuniformly, so far as my reading goes, all had been willing to admit that\nthere was absolutely no hope for comparable artistic achievement in\ntheir own time; that such art could be produced only in simpler, earlier\nsocieties than their own; that, indeed, a characteristic of a mature\nsociety was that it had grown up beyond the young, crude, exuberant\nstage in which conditions were ideal for the cultivation of the esthetic\nsensibilities. The ideal time for the production of major art, they\ntended to conclude, was at that point in the history of a society when\nit was moving from the savage into the civilized. They were thus not\nabsolute esthetic primitivists; but they were concerned nonetheless to\ntie art to its primitive origins, as for the most part they were\nconcerned equally to celebrate their triumph over the limitations of\nsuch origins. So, to take one example, Thomas Blackwell, meditating\nHomer's achievement in his _Enquiry_, had written in 1735 that it does\nnot \"seem to be given to one and the same Kingdom, to be thoroughly\ncivilized, and afford proper Subjects for Poetry\"; and in the same work\nhe later declared that he hoped \"_That we may never be a proper Subject\nof an Heroic Poem_.\" Only by being a \"Subject\" for a heroic poem could\nthe poet write one; for only then would he have available to him the\nliving language--and thus the techniques--adequately to express that\n\"Subject.\" This was to be a dominant refrain--matched, to be sure, by a\ncounter-refrain, treatment of which is not immediately relevant\nhere[2]--through the century. A significant number of critics and\nliterary theorists would be willing to resign themselves to having a\nlesser art, if such resignation would mean that they could adequately\ncelebrate the enlightened achievements of their own century. They\nworked out a method of historical analysis whereby they might construct\n\"conjectural histories\" of civilization which would allow them to place\npoetry and the fine arts in the long line of the evolution of culture\ntoward their own time and to demonstrate, moreover, that even as the\narts had come early, so philosophy, proper religion, the sciences, and\nall the highest forms of civilization had come late. Thus they could\nannounce triumphantly that if they had lost something, they had gained\nmuch more.\n\nBut still the greatness of the art which they did not have moved and\nattracted them. Their work is perhaps a measure of their attempts to\nrationalize out of existence a longing for the art which they felt their\ntime was not giving them. Perhaps that is why Scott, in the 1790's--his\nmind, so it seems to us, not only informed but made by the critical\nformulae of his time--tried to face squarely up to the fact that somehow\ngreet art had to be made possible for even his enlightened century. Yet\nhis mind was so simple and simplifying that he thought that merely by\ndenying his predecessors carefully worked out conjecture of the\nnecessary connection between an \"early\" society and great art, he could\nprove that such was possible in his time. For the artist envisaged in\nthe \"Dissertation\" is still, in spite of his obvious attempts to have it\notherwise, the artist as conceived of by Blackwell and the rest of\nScott's predecessors. Scott glories in the civilized achievements of his\nown age, yet somehow hopes that the same \"liberal public encouragement\"\nthat obtained in Greece will come again and make for such labor, pains,\nand study as will create in England art as great as Greece's. Such a\ncondition, he feels, is not impossible; yet he says nothing of the kind\nof social structure and character which he has already shown to be\nrequisite to the development of \"liberal public encouragement.\" The\nargument, such as it is, is left hanging. That is to say, there is no\nevidence in the essay that Scott could really think through to the\npossibility of the major artist's being immediately present in an\neighteenth-century society re-made, so far as its artistic life was\nconcerned, in a primitivistic pattern. He remains purely a theoretical\npossibility in Scott's scheme of things, as does the society in which he\nmight flourish.\n\nLikewise, in the other essays[3] which Scott collected and published\nalong with the \"Dissertation,\" there is no evidence that he really\nunderstood what was involved in taking the stand he did. In the most\ninteresting of these pieces, \"An Essay on the Influence of Taste on\nMorals,\" he denies the existence of a Hutchesonian moral sense,\nabsolutely separates esthetic taste from morals, holds that art will\nhave an influence toward immorality unless it is kept in check with a\nmoral system properly inculcated by revealed religion. What he is\nentirely unaware of is the possible radical implications of such a\nseparation of art and morality. As in the \"Dissertation,\" he accepts a\nconventional notion and is satisfied to push it as far as he can, never\nexploring its possible ambiguities.\n\nThe ambiguities are those, of course, which led to that transformation\nof critical theory and artistic practice which we associate with the\nromantic movement. In this light, it is interesting to note that just\nfourteen years after the first publication of the \"Dissertation\" William\nHazlitt could take a stand almost identical in gross characteristics\nwith that of Scott and the others--this in his \"Why the Arts are Not\nProgressive.\"[4] For Hazlitt, because \"the arts unlike the sciences and\nthe forms of high civilization in general hold immediate communication\nwith nature,\" they develop best soon after their \"birth\" and thrive \"in\na state of society which [is], in other respects, comparatively\nbarbarous.\" He goes so far as to instance Homer, Chaucer, Spenser,\nShakespeare, Dante, Ariosto, Raphael, Titian, Michaelangelo, Correggio,\nCervantes, and Boccaccio. In all its extremity, in its inclusive\nview of what constitutes a barbarous society and its peculiar cultural\nvirtues, this is but the conventional doctrine of Scott and all those\nwho came before him. But it is, in Hazlitt, transformed into a\nstatement, not, as in Scott's predecessors, of a rationale for the\nweakness of art in their time, nor, as in Scott himself, of a dimly\nespoused hope of art in his time. It becomes a frank, \"sympathetic\"\nstatement of a fact of life which, when granted, will enable men to\nenjoy and comprehend great art of all ages. The doctrine is focussed on\nthe work of art, not on the culture which lacks it; it has been\ncrucially transformed from a historical into a heuristic principle.\nScott's \"Dissertation\" embodies the doctrine just before its\ntransformation--a neoclassical strain, we can say, just before it had\nbecame a romantic strain. Scott almost takes his stand with Hazlitt; but\nhe is not quite there. And not being quite there, he is a whole world\naway.\n\n                                                       Roy Harvey Pearce\n                                                   Ohio State University\n\n\n\n\n                                 NOTES\n\n\n[Footnote 1: Among the works that I have seen which specifically develop\nthis argument are: Thomas Blackwell, _An Enquiry into the Life and\nWritings of Homer_ (1735); Richard Hurd, _The Third [Elizabethan]\nDialogue_ (1759) and _Letters on Chivalry and Romance_ (1762); John\nOgilvie, \"An Essay on the Lyric Poetry of the Ancients,\" in _Poems on\nSeveral Subjects_ (1762); John Brown, _A Dissertation of the Rise,\nUnion, and Power, the Progressions, Separations, and Corruptions of\nPoetry and Music_ (1763) and a shorter version of the _Dissertation, The\nHistory of the Rise and Progress of Poetry_ (1764); Hugh Blair, _A\nCritical Dissertation on the Poems_ of Ossian (1763); William Duff, _An\nEssay on Original Genius_ (1767); Robert Wood, _An Essay on the Original\nGenius and Writings of Homer_ (1767, enlarged version 1769); Thomas\nPownall, _A Treatise on the Study of Antiquities_ (1782). Such a list,\nhowever, if it were to indicate the scope and ramifications of the\nargument would have to be expanded to include more general\neighteenth-century studies of the evolution of cultural forms; for the\nargument on the nature of art and its relation to \"primitive\" societies\nis part of a larger one centering on the whole idea of progress.\nTreatment of the whole subject has never been fully integrated into a\nstudy of the nature (or natures) of eighteenth-century criticism and\ncritical theory--although a start has been made on study of it in and of\nitself. The basic treatment remains Lois Whitney's _Primitivism and the\nIdea of Progress_ (Baltimore, 1934) and her two essays \"English\nPrimitivistic Theories of Epic Origins,\" _MP_, XXI (1924), 337-378 and\n\"Thomas Blackwell, a Disciple of Shaftesbury,\" _PQ_, _V_ (1926),\n196-211. These are to be considerably qualified in their general,\nsociological orientation by Gladys Bryson's _Man and Society: The\nScottish Inquiry of the Eighteenth Century_ (Princeton, 1945). They are\nfurther to be qualified in their literary-critical orientation by my\n\"The Eighteenth-Century Scottish Primitivists: Some Reconsiderations,\"\n_ELH_, XII (1945), 203-220, which is in turn somewhat expanded upon and\ngeneralized in the appendix to Ernest Tuveson's _Millenium and Utopia:\nA Study in the Background of the Idea of Progress_ (Berkeley, 1949).]\n\n[Footnote 2: See, for example, Donald Foerster, \"Scottish Primitivism\nand the Historical Approach,\" _PQ_, XXIX (1950), 307-323.]\n\n[Footnote 3: The essay was republished in 1804 as part of Scott's\n_Dissertations, Essays, and Parallels_. These pieces range from college\npremium compositions of the 1770's to the \"Dissertation\" of 1800.]\n\n[Footnote 4: The essay is handily available in W. J. Bate's anthology,\n_Criticism: The Major Texts_ (New York, 1952), pp. 292-295.]\n\n\n\n\n                             DISSERTATIONS,\n                                Essays,\n                                  AND\n                               PARALLELS.\n\n                                   BY\n                       _JOHN ROBERT SCOTT, D. D._\n\n\n                                LONDON:\n                  _Printed by T. Bensley, Bolt Court_,\n\n          AND SOLD BY J. JOHNSON, 72, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD;\n             AND MESS. C. & R. BALDWIN, NEW BRIDGE STREET,\n                              BLACKFRIARS.\n\n                                 1804.\n\n\n\n\n                               CONTENTS.\n\n\n                                                                   PAGE.\n    A Dissertation on the Influence of Religion\n      on Civil Society                                                1\n\n    A Dissertation on the Expulsion of the Moors\n      from Spain, and the Protestants from\n      France and the Low Countries                                   33\n\n    A Dissertation on the first Peopling of America                  75\n\n    A Dissertation on the Progress of the Fine Arts                 125\n\n    A Dissertation on National Population                           181\n\n    An Essay on Writing History                                     219\n\n    An Essay on the Question, Was Eloquence\n      beneficial to Athens?                                         245\n\n    An Essay on the Influence of Taste on Morals                    269\n\n    Comparison between William III, of England\n      and Henry IV, of France                                       303\n\n    Comparison of Cardinal Ximenes and Cardinal\n      Richelieu                                                     323\n\n    Comparison between Augustus C\u00e6sar and Lewis XIV                 343\n\n    Comparison of Maximilian de Bethune, Duke of Sully,\n      and William Pitt, Earl of Chatham                             361\n\n\n\n\n                                PREFACE.\n\n\nMost of the following compositions were written several years ago, when\nthe Author was a student in the distinguished University of Dublin;\nwhose acknowledged excellence in classical literature, and in every\nbranch of scientific learning, needs not the celebration of his feeble\npraise: and by it the first and second Dissertations, and one of the\nEssays, were honoured with the first literary rewards in the power of\nthat learned body to bestow. Written at first with an honest desire of\nacquiring fair reputation by praise-worthy exertions, they are now\nsubmitted to the public eye from a wish to contribute to the liberal\namusement, and perhaps to the improvement, of the minds of his\nfellow-creatures; with all the natural anxieties of an author\naddressing a public, to whom he is little known; but without any\nunmanly dread or humiliating deprecation of just and candid criticism.\nShould they drop still-born from the press, as it may be has been the\nfate of as meritorious compositions, the author (as becomes him) will\nsubmit without murmuring to the general verdict. Should they, on the\ncontrary, be graced with a favourable reception, he shall deem himself\nhonoured by such notice; and will endeavour to render some larger works\nof his, shortly to be submitted to the same respectable tribunal, as\nworthy as his abilities will permit of its approving judgment.\n\n  Gloucester Street,\n  Queen Square, 1804.\n\n\n\n\n                              DISSERTATION\n                                 ON THE\n                      _PROGRESS OF THE FINE ARTS_.\n\n                          (Published in 1800.)\n\n\n\n\n                                   TO\n                          BENJAMIN WEST, ESQ.\n                    PRESIDENT OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY,\n\n                         WHOSE TALENTS DIGNIFY,\n                       AND WHOSE MANNERS ORNAMENT\n                   HIS ELEVATED SITUATION AS HEAD OF\n                       THAT HONOURABLE AND USEFUL\n                              INSTITUTION,\n\n                                  THE\n                         FOLLOWING DISSERTATION\n                                   ON\n\n                     THE PROGRESS OF THE FINE ARTS\n\n                             IS DEDICATED,\n              WITH SINCERE RESPECT AND ALL DUE DEFERENCE,\n                             BY HIS OBLIGED\n                                AND FAITHFUL HUMBLE SERVANT,\n\n                                                    _JOHN ROBERT SCOTT_.\n\n    28, Gloucester Street,\n  Queen Square, April, 1800.\n\n\n\n\n                          A DISSERTATION, &c.\n\n\nThe natural feelings of man, when he enters into society with his\nfellow-creatures, first induce him to improve by the means thence\nacquired the arts necessary to his existence and well-being: whose want\nhe every day felt in his separate and detached state, and for whose\nmelioration he has just reason to hope from the union of combined force,\nand from the co-operation of confederated talents. Presst incessantly by\nthe demands for the sustenance of animal life, to supply them\nplentifully is not only his first care, but also that of the community\nwith which he has associated, if it is even one degree removed from the\nsavage state: and hence, in this early period of growing civilization,\nthe tending of flocks and the tilling of fields, Pasturage and\nAgriculture, are deemed not only necessary but honourable occupations;\nthe simplicity of untutored man ever leading him to estimate that to be\nmost laudable which he finds to be most useful. These being advanced to\na certain degree of excellence, which, though far inferior to what they\nare obviously capable of attaining, is yet sufficient not only for the\ncomfortable but for the indulgent enjoyment of life, new desires arise,\nnew wants spring up; and their gratification is pursued with an\neagerness correspondent to the novelty of their origin, and the untried\nforce of their impression. The cravings of our animal nature being amply\nprovided for by the ingenuity of the inhabitants, by the fertility of\nthe soil, or by the conjoint operation of both, the imagination begins\nin the luxuriance of abundance to picture to itself new sources of\ndelight, and spurning, not without some contempt, the mere provision for\nexistence, to fancy ideal pleasures, and to search out with anxious care\nand laboured pains those objects which may gratify them. And man,\nfinding himself possessed of more than a sufficiency to supply all his\nwants, is willingly inclined to impart some share of that redundance to\nthose who will contribute to his convenience and satisfaction; to those\nwho will render his comforts at all times more comfortable, who will\nrelieve the languors of his lassitude, and fill up the vacuities of his\nleisure with amusement. As there always were some to whom labour had no\ncharms, other more agreeable means of acquiring support were quickly\nsought out, and the inventive powers of the mind were stretched to form\nthose imagined pleasures whose want was felt, and whose reward was\nready.\n\nHence Architecture, Painting, and Statuary, (with strict propriety\ndenominated the fine arts) primarily arose; hence they derived their\nmost assiduous cultivation, and hence the utmost perfection to which\nthey have yet attained. Unsatisfied with the hut that merely protected\nfrom the inclemencies of the elements, and, in the moments of repose,\nfrom the unwarned attacks of the savages of the forest, man soon sought\nout for more permanent, more pleasing habitations: to which experience\nfirst joined increased conveniences, and then his inventive faculties,\nsometimes aided by fortunate chance, sometimes led on by correct fancy,\nadded those ornaments that have stood the test of ages, and fixed those\nproportions that have uniformly approved themselves to all the judicious\nthrough the revolving course of various centuries. The ingenuity of love\ntaught the fair nymph to portray the shadow of that favoured youth whose\nmerits had won her heart, that even in his absence she might feast her\nmind with beholding some similitude of his form: and hence the\nimagination, impregnated by the nascent thought, conceived those\npossibilities of excellence in painting, and that source of intellectual\nenjoyment thence arising, which Zeuxis and Parrhasius exhibited to the\nadmiring eyes of Greece, and which Raphael and Michael Angelo have\ndisplayed to the enraptured contemplation of the modern world.\nPoetry, it is true, early indeed enabled mankind, by the fascinating\npower of its melodious sounds and its persuasive numbers, to \"raise\nmonuments[e] more durable than brass,\" and to consecrate to immortality\nthose illustrious persons who had entitled themselves to lasting fame by\ntheir deserts. But, even long antecedent to that period, the desire of\nhaving some representative form of reverenced or beloved individuals had\ntaught men to make some likenesses of them in rude sculptures of stone\nor ivory: though destitute of the advantage of colouring, yet more\nimpressively striking to the senses than the productions of painting,\nhad they then existed (which may be doubted), and, from the nature of\ntheir materials, less liable to the injuries of the weather. These, we\nacknowledge, were cold, inanimate, and destitute of all appearance of\nmotion; till D\u00e6dalus contrived to give expression to the countenance and\naction to the limbs; on which succeeding artists improving, each\nrivalling and then surpassing his predecessor, at length produced those\n\"works to wonder at,\" the exquisite, the unmatched, the divine dignity\nof the Apollo Belvedere, the energy, the athletic force of the Borghese\ncombatant, the agonized expression of the Laocoon, and the tearful\nsorrows of the Niobe.\n\n[Footnote e: Exegi monumentum \u00e6re perennius. Horatii Carmi. Lib. iii.\nOde 30.]\n\nThe expectations formed of the enjoyments to be derived from the\nmasterly productions of these Arts have in no one instance been\ndisappointed; but, we may assert without fear of contradiction, have in\nevery case been greatly exceeded: for though the emanations of the arts,\nwith the single exception of the Apollo Belvedere, may have fallen short\nof that ideal excellence which forms their standard in each duly\ncultivated mind, as, in the department of literature, the great Roman\norator states to have been the case with his own admirable compositions,\nthey have yet confessedly arrived at a degree of beauty, a splendor of\neffect, and a power of impression, hardly to be hoped, and not easily\nto be conceived.\n\nShould it then be demanded, what causes produced this transcendent\nbeauty, this unrivalled grace, this combination of pleasing form and\nperfect utility? They will be found, not in any fortuitous concurrence\nof accidents, not in any benign aspect of the planets, not in any genial\ninfluence of the atmosphere, as has been weakly imagined and absurdly\nasserted by certain self-denominated Philosophers of the continent; but\nto have been the effects of much labour and much pains, of much study\nand much industry, of great national encouragement, and of the peculiar\nsituation of that fortunate land wherein they were advanced from their\nsalient principle to their matured perfection.\n\nTo confine ourselves to Greece, with which and its history, by means of\nits incomparable writers, we are best acquainted: the first striking\ncircumstance in their favour was, that in it they were not borrowed, nor\nimported, nor caused by foreign imitation, but were the home-bred\nproduce of the country; and therefore, however cultivated and improved,\nalways retained the rich raciness of a native soil. Successive\ngenerations of artists arose, each excelling the other in merit, and\neach of these had a correspondent race of their countrymen ready to\nadmire, and prepared to applaud them. No fastidious delicacy, no\naffected superiority of discernment or skill, repressed their talents,\nor curbed their genius: but free scope was given to the boldest of their\nflights, and, when they happened to succeed, the praise of their own age\nwas their sure and adequate reward. The productions of the earlier\nperiods would not have, indeed, pleased in the polished age of Pericles,\nunless as illustrative of the progress of the arts; for then more\ncaptivating models were every day produced, more enchanting examples\nwere every day exhibited to the view. But in their own age, and their\nown time, being superior to all that had been seen before, they were\nthought matchless performances, and so received with undisputed\nplaudits the highest estimation. This connate temper of the times (if I\nmay use the expression) proved a most powerful incentive to the\nabilities of the artists, and ensured to them, if surpassing in merit\ntheir predecessors, honourable regard, and that fame[f] which above all\nother considerations was dear to a Grecian heart. Hence labour and\npains, assiduity and exertion, were unremittingly applied to advance\ntheir peculiar art, to smooth its asperities, to ornament its nakedness,\nto improve whatever of excellent existed in it, and to aim at still\nfarther capabilities of excellence. Certain of the approbation of their\ncontemporaries, repressed by no ideas of unattainable perfection, which\nwere the growth of latter times and of the greatest refinement, they\ndaily added something to the common stock; and though that something was\nin itself, perhaps, inconsiderable, it yet raised its possessor to no\ncommon degree of celebrity. Thus the arts advanced, proceeding from\nstrength to strength, constantly receiving accessions of improvement,\nwhich were favoured by many conspiring, and retarded by no unpropitious\ncircumstances: and, being native to the country, the abilities of the\nartists in a great measure formed the taste of the age, as its fostering\nadmiration constituted their most flattering reward.\n\n[Footnote f: Pr\u00e6ter laudem nullius avaris. Horatius De Arte Poetica.]\n\nFrom a situation perfectly dissimilar, though the Romans long and\nsedulously cultivated the arts, yet their noblest efforts never equalled\nthe best works of the Grecian school; of which the sacred remnants still\nremain unrivalled and unmatched. For amongst them they were not\nindigenous, but introduced as it were by violence; by the power of the\nconquering sword, and by the plundering of insatiable rapacity: each of\nthe Roman generals, however ignorant or unpolished himself, yet\npillaging vanquished Greece of the choicest works of her happier days.\nThus, indeed, exquisite models and patterns of consummate beauty were\nprocured for the rustic Latians,[g] on which they wrought with\nassiduity, and attempted to emulate: but their redundancy was rather\noppressive than co-operative, and their very perfection tended to\nprevent an encouraging esteem of the rising artists. For the judgment,\nor what we call the Taste, of the public being formed not gradually, and\nby progressive steps of improving art, but all at once, and (as it were)\nat a bound, assumed a squeamish delicacy which nothing imperfect would\nplease, and which delighted more in finding faults than in discovering\nbeauties. And this cause, whose operation is alike powerful and general,\ncontributed more to keep down the Roman arts, and to prevent them from\nequalling the Greek, than any inferiority of talents, or than any want\nof continued application and culture.\n\n[Footnote g:\n\n  - - - - - - artes\n  Intulit agresti Latio.                Horatii Epis. Lib. ii. Ep. 1.]\n\nThe case has been the same in the modern world, and it will be found\nuniversally true, that where the arts have arisen from natural, or\nnearly natural causes, and have thence proceeded by gradual advances to\nhigher degrees of perfection, the judgment or taste of the nation\nsimilarly meliorating with their improvement, they have attained, and\nwill attain, the utmost excellence which the abilities of the artists\ncan give them: but when brought forward among a people by extraneous\ncircumstances, such as the force of conquests, the commanding influence\nof supreme power, or the efforts of affected imitation, though they may\nbloom and flourish for a season, that they never will arrive at that\nrichness of maturity they have been seen to possess elsewhere, nor will\nenjoy that vigour of growth which native juices infuse; but, like\nhothouse plants, though fairly seeming, are yet vapid to the sense, and\nwhen bereft of their borrowed heat, quickly sink, rot, and die.\n\nThe progress of the arts in the ancient world, with the astonishing\nexcellence to which they were carried, was also much aided by the\nmanners and customs there prevailing, and in constant and daily\npractice. To games and vigorous exercises the ancients were remarkably\naddicted, regarding them both as liberal amusements and as a preparatory\ndiscipline for the active occupations of war, in which each freeman of\nthe state knew himself obliged to engage at a certain period of his\nlife, and which he could not avoid without being damned to never-ceasing\ninfamy. Now all these were performed _naked_, as well on account of the\nwarmth of the atmosphere as to preclude all unequal advantages, and to\nhabituate the mind fearlessly to expose the person to the assaults of\nincumbent danger. Hence the human figure was hourly exhibited to the\ninspecting view of the attentive beholder, whether sculptor or painter,\nin all its various forms of grace and elegance, of strength and force,\nor of agony and torture: and these not the assumed appearances of\nfictitious feeling, but the vivid effects of actual endurance, and\nglowing from the mint of present impression. These were not to be sought\nin Schools and Academies, they were not the lifeless colourings of\nmercenary hirelings, but the energies of men emulous of fame, and\nconscious that their characters with their countrymen would be\nmaterially influenced by their performances in these favourite contests.\nContests which as amusements were the delight of all, which as exercises\nwere the duty of multitudes; which hoary age beheld with rapture, as\nrecalling the remembrance of the days of their prime, and which\nunfledged youth gazed on with transport, as picturing those deeds\nwhereby they panted soon to be distinguished. Thus nothing but the most\ncareless inattention could avoid noting the distinctive marks of the\nvarious passions and affections, which nature writes in very legible\ncharacters: and as all from repeated observation were equally well\nacquainted with them, in their representation by the artist nothing\nshort of the most exact and accurate likeness could hope for tolerance,\nmuch less for approbation.\n\nTheir scientific knowledge of anatomy, as applicable and subservient to\nmedical purposes, was perhaps inferior to ours, for they appear not to\nhave enjoyed the advantage in their principal cities of such men as the\nHunters[h] and Cleghorn:[i] but that inferiority proved not injurious to\nthe artist, who chiefly engaged in imitating the prominent features of\nthe human frame when thrown into action, amply compensated for his\nignorance of the theory of muscular motion, of the nervous system, and\nof osteology, by the effects of observation incessantly repeated on the\nmost striking objects, and, it may be, the more impressive from coming\nunsought and uninculcated. In fact they could scarcely avoid making this\nobservation: it was presst on them from every quarter; it was urged on\nthem by every incident. If they attended their morning exercises, it was\nexcited there; if they resorted to their evening amusements, it was\nroused there also. In the retirement of the country it was not allowed\nto sleep; in the bustle of the city it was awakened to all its vivacity.\nFrom private enjoyment, from public security; from the recreations of\npeace, from the toils of war; from the vacuities of idleness, and from\nthe labours of industry it alike received nurture, support, and aliment.\nThus reiteratedly enforced, its effects became, like those of a second\nnature, interwoven with the habitudes of the mind, and called forth into\naction, when the occasion required, with readiness and facility, without\neffort and without premeditation. Hence the wonders that we are told of\nthe astonishing power of their paintings, limited as we know they were\nin the number of their colours; of which though we are deprived of the\nsight by the lapse of time, yet are they rendered credible, nay, fully\nverified, to us by the matchless remains of their statues; whose\ntranscendent merit we have ocular demonstration that neither prejudice\nhad praised nor ignorance had extolled beyond their real deserts.\nHence the truth of nature in the Laocoon, where the expression of\nsuffering is not confined to the agitated visage, but is as forcibly\nmarked in the agonized foot as in the distorted countenance. Hence every\nmuscle moves, every sinew is stretched, every atom of the figure\nconspires to the general effect in the Borghese combatant:[k] and hence\neach particular part of the Farnesian Hercules represents, as forcibly\nas the entire statue, that character of superior manly strength and\nresistless might, which ancient tales have taught us to connect with the\nidea of the person of that fabled hero.\n\n[Footnote h: Dr. William Hunter and Mr. John Hunter, the late celebrated\nanatomists of London.]\n\n[Footnote i: Dr. George Cleghorn, the late excellent and deservedly\nfamous Professor of Anatomy in the university of Dublin: a man of whom\nit can be truly said that the excellent qualities of his heart were as\nestimable as his superior professional talents were conspicuous.]\n\n[Footnote k: This statue, which forms one of the most valuable\npossessions in the superb Borghese collection, is commonly called _the\nfighting Gladiator_; but, we apprehend, very erroneously: as the whole\nof that admirable figure bespeaks a character greatly superior to that\nof those degraded and despised beings, whose mercenary services\ncontributed to the amusements of the Roman amphitheatre.]\n\nIt cannot be inferred from what has been here said that there is\nintended any unqualified approbation of the custom of appearing naked;\nwhich so generally prevailed among the ancients, and more especially\namong the Greeks. Surely no: for its indecency is obvious; it smoothed\nthe path to many immoralities, and doubtless tended in no slight degree\nto inflame, if not kindle, some notorious vices to which they were\neminently addicted. But it has been merely considered with respect to\nits subserviency to promote the arts of painting and sculpture: and its\npowerful and salutary influence on them seems so apparent as to be\nnearly incontestible. It co-operated with other causes, yet to be\nmentioned, to give them that superlative excellence which, through a\nlong succession of centuries, has excited uniform admiration; and which\nyet, superlative as it was, fell short of the ideas of it entertained\nand cherished by the artists.\n\nThe peculiar situation of Greece, from the first beginnings of the arts\nto their most flourishing period, contributed also materially to their\nimprovement and perfection. In its utmost extent not a country of large\ndimensions, it was yet divided and subdivided into a number of\nindependent states; each eager for distinction, each emulous of fame,\neach jealous of all superiority in their neighbours. Never for any\nlength of time subject to the dominion of masters, till the overwhelming\ninfluence of the Macedonian sunk them all into common slavery, their\nconstitutions were free, or what they regarded as free: in which each\ncitizen felt himself equally interested with any other to extend the\nreputation, to exalt the glory, and to enlarge the consequence of the\nstate. And when the pre-eminence of power had assigned to Sparta, and\nafterwards to Athens, that preponderance of authority and weight of\nconsequence necessary to a leading state, first among its equals; still,\nfrom national spirit and from deep-rooted habits, an emulation every\nwhere prevailed of rivalling in the first rank of reputation each of\ntheir neighbours, although they had conceded to one of them the dignity\nof command. With the single exception of Sparta, where the stern\ndiscipline of Lycurgus effectually prevented their progress, as after\nthe arts had began to arise their cultivation was diffused and eagerly\npursued throughout all Greece; the praise of excellence in them early\nbecame and long continued an object of the first importance with all its\nvarious states. They regarded them not only as a means of internal\nornament, in which yet they much prided themselves, but also of external\ncharacter; a means which might raise to higher fame than the most\ncelebrated their favoured district, however inferior to them in\npolitical power. Hence the possession of an artist of distinguished\nabilities and superior talents was considered as a national concern: and\nthe esteem wherein he was held, the popularity he acquired, and the\ndignified stations to which with fair prospects of success he might\naspire, were answerable to the consequence which his genius was thought\nto confer on his native land.\n\nAs this sentiment was universal, animating the minds and guiding the\nconduct of all the different states, its influence on the improvement of\nthe arts, and on the exertions of their professors, was powerful in the\nextreme. They were not deemed the lucrative trades of mechanical men,\nby which some fame and much money might be procured; but the ennobling\noccupations of the best-deserving citizens, anxiously labouring to exalt\nthe reputation of their country, and to raise her to a more envied\neminence among the surrounding and rival republics. And the citizens\nthus employed were conscious, in addition to the common motives of\nrivalry generally prevalent at all times among men of spirit engaged in\nthe same pursuits, that not only their individual character, but the\nfame of their nation, was implicated in their labours; and fired by the\nwarm energy of that recollection, they wrought with a glowing heat, with\nan ardour of enthusiasm that, in repeated instances, burst forth in the\nbrightest blaze of excellence. For their exertions in their particular\narts were not thought, either by themselves or by the public, the mere\nefforts of competition of sculptors, painters, or architects, with their\nfellow artists; but trials of merit between adjacent communities, each\nvain of their present character, each aiming at higher distinction,\neach hoping for the pre-eminence: to which trials the eminent artists\nstept forwards the champions of a people, not the combatants in a\nprivate contest.\n\nHence with unremitting zeal beauty and grace, strength and spirit, truth\nand nature, were investigated through all their different forms, were\nexamined with minute attention, were applied with scrupulous accuracy.\nIt little weighed with the professor what his own countrymen, however\npolished, judged of his work, what impression it made on them, or what\nplaudits of theirs it called forth: but how it would be received at the\nOlympic or Isthmian games, at the general assembly of all Greece; where\neach skilful eye and each intelligent mind would be employed in\nscrutinizing it without favour or affection, and would compare it as\nwell with the best productions of similar art then known as with the\nelaborate essays of contemporary artists. Thus whatever of genius, or\ntalents, or skill, or judgment, or industry, each man possessed, was\ncalled forth into action by motives the most operative on the human\nmind, whose power is known and confessed: and the consequence was the\nrapid and unequalled improvement of the Arts. Improvement which still\nastonishes, and which we are sometimes inclined to imagine the effort of\na superior race of beings to those with whom we converse: but which\narose from causes strong and cogent indeed, but natural, and without\ndifficulty discoverable.\n\nSomething not unlike this happened at the revival of the arts in Europe,\nand contributed materially to their advancement. For Italy, which was\ntheir cradle, was then broken into a number of independent states,\nmostly free, and rivalling each other in every praise of prowess and\npolicy. Hence, when the revival of the arts furnished a new source of\nfame, it was pursued with avidity; and the various schools formed in its\ndifferent cities vied with each other for superiority, and by their\nlaudable rivalry promoted the progress of the arts with extraordinary\ncelerity. And though, perhaps, these schools, which soon became\ndistinguished by peculiar merits, may not finally have contributed to\nthe perfection of the arts, as leading their respective students rather\nto pursue the attainment of that one distinct merit than to aim at the\nacquisition of universal excellence; yet, at the close of the fifteenth\nand in the sixteenth century, by their praiseworthy emulation and\nvigorous exertions, they were singularly useful, and essentially tended\nto the rapid improvement of the reviving arts. Their fame added much to\nthe splendor and reputation of the cities wherein they were settled, and\nthat circumstance proved a very perceptible incentive to invigorate\ntheir talents and to animate their exertions; and so produced, though in\nan inferior degree, not a little of that spirited labour, of that\nenthusiastic devotion to their profession, which had aided so\nconsiderably the progress of the arts in Greece. We say _in an inferior\ndegree_; because the Italian cities, though sensible of their worth, and\npersuaded of their public utility, never bestowed on individual\nprofessors such extraordinary marks of attention and reverence as the\nGrecian states were in the habit of lavishing on their more illustrious\nartists; and, consequently, the cause being lessened, the effect must\nhave been proportionably diminished. In truth this species of rivalry,\nin which states or nations, however small, feel themselves interested,\nhas ever proved one of the strongest stimulatives that could be applied\nto abilities; as it combines the patriotic affections of the worthy\ncitizen with the natural ambition of the artist, and alike operates on\nsome of the most powerful public and private springs of action.\n\nBut the labour and pains, the study and industry early employed and long\ncontinued, in the cultivation of the arts, naturally and necessarily\nadvanced their progress in a striking manner: raising them to such a\nheight of perfection as we weakly think unattainable, because we will\nnot use the adequate means of endeavouring to attain it. Labour is to\nman, from his constitution and his frame, the real price of every truly\nvaluable acquisition; which, though indolence spurns and idleness\nrejects, always brings its own reward with it, whether we are ultimately\nsuccessful or not, in the consciousness of having acted a manly part,\nand in the vigour of mind and health of body which it, and it alone,\ninvariably confers. Some fortuitous instances may be mentioned of those\nwho have possessed both without its aid; of those who, nursed on the lap\nof indolence, and folded in the arms of idleness, have enjoyed that\nfirst of human blessings, a sound mind in a sound body: but they are\ninstances to astonish, not examples to incite. This is even more\nstrictly and peculiarly true as it regards the arts, than it is in\nseveral other cases. For the great merit of painting and sculpture\nconsisting in their exact and captivating copies of nature, and of\narchitecture in its combination of beauty with grandeur, of convenience\nwith magnificence, it is obvious that these qualities are never the\ncasual effects of chance and accident, of lucky hits and fortunate\nevents; but the steady results of pains and care, of study and\nattention.\n\nOf this truth the professors of the arts in Greece were quickly and\nfully convinced; and applied that conviction to its only proper purpose,\nto an unremitting labour on their own appropriate pursuit: a labour\nwhich, paramount over each other object, neither pleasure prevented, nor\npolitics precluded, nor the calls of animal life hindered. To excel in\ntheir art, to surpass their predecessors, to outstrip their\ncompetitors, to be the conspicuous subject of Grecian admiration, were\nthe objects of their daily thoughts and of their nightly dreams: objects\nwhich scarce for a moment retired from their view, or, if for a moment\nretiring, it was only that they might recur again with renovated force.\nThe[l] _multa dies et multa litura_ which the Roman poet ascribes to the\nGrecian writers, and to which he truly attributes their superior merit,\nwere still more eminently true of their artists; who applied to the\ncompletion of their various works a severity of study and a perseverance\nof labour that to us, habituated to very different manners indeed, seem\nsurprizing; but of which the authenticated accounts cannot be disputed.\nAs exalted character, not the mere making of money, was the aim to which\ntheir thoughts were directed, it was pursued with that eagerness which\nhonest ambition ever creates: and though, incidentally, fortune\nfrequently followed their fame, as it came unsought for, none of its\ndegrading motives swayed their conduct.\n\n[Footnote l: Horatius.]\n\nIt was not the idea of the[m] hundred talents which he received, great\nas that sum was (for not one _drachma_ of it would he have received had\nnot his work been approved), that inspirited the genius of Phidias when\nhe was sculpturing the Olympian Jupiter; but the reflection that by his\nskill the rude block was to be transformed into the representative\nlikeness of the father of gods and men, to be the admiration and\nadoration of his enraptured countrymen: and hence profound study,\nexquisite pains, and incessant labour, were employed to produce that\nstatue, which thence became afterwards the wonder of the world. Under\nthe impulse of such impressions must the Apollo Belvedere have come from\nthe hands of its unequalled sculptor: for though we know not the history\nof that incomparable statue, yet its expression of dignity more than\nhuman, its unforced graceful ease which nature can but faintly copy, its\nperfect symmetry, and union of complete beauty with full bodily\nstrength, tell more than a thousand witnesses the pains, the study, and\nthe labour that must have been unremittingly exerted to produce it.\n\n[Footnote m: 19,375 l.]\n\nIt would argue a silly prejudice, not a due sense of the merits of the\nancients, to attempt to insinuate that this labour and study, to which\nwe are inclined to attribute so much, was universal. No; for in Greece\nthen, as with ourselves now, there were among the artists (what in the\nmodern phrase we call) _fine gentlemen_: persons of too sublime a genius\nto condescend to study, and of too delicate a frame to submit to labour.\nThe character of the species has been preserved, though the names of its\nindividuals have long, long since been forgotten. But they never\npromoted the progress, never advanced the improvement of any art: but,\nlike their _amiable_ successors, followed a trade for support, and did\nnot cultivate a profession with dignity. But the persons of whom we\nspeak, as distinguished by these qualities, were those worthy citizens\nwho addicted themselves to no art without adorning and improving it;\nwhose names ennobled the age in which they lived; who then were never\nmentioned without reverence, nor yet, at this far distant period, are\never thought on without respect. By their studies and their labours,\nvigorously and undeviatingly exerted, was the progress of the arts\npromoted, their improvement accelerated, and their near approximation\nto perfection effected: they thus experimentally proving the energetic\npower of these valuable qualities, and leaving examples to fire the\nemulation of the spirited and the active in each future age.\n\nIn addition to the circumstances already mentioned, whose power and\nefficiency on the progress of the arts we have endeavoured to point out,\nthere must be called to mind the great national encouragement which they\nreceived in Greece, and the extraordinary influence which it must have\nhad on the warm imaginations of its gay and high-spirited inhabitants.\nThe desire of distinction and honour is a principle interwoven in the\nconstitution of our nature; and though, like most others we possess, it\nis liable to perversion, is in itself not only blameless but laudable;\ninciting the best exertions of talents where they are, and often\nsupplying their place where it finds them not. There are no countries,\nhowever adverse the regent of the day may have yoked his horses from\nthem, where its operation is not more or less felt: and in exact\nproportion to the civilization and mental improvement of each country,\nits ascendency has ever been found to be high, its dominion to be great.\nThis is strictly true even with regard to the estimation of private\nindividuals: but the applause of a whole people has invariably been\ndeemed the most just meed of the most exceeding merit, ever since\nnations have assumed a fixed and stable form. Now this applause formed\nan important part of the great national rewards by which Greece fostered\nthe arts; and it was a part that peculiarly came home both to the\nbusiness and bosoms of each worthy citizen, and caused every pulse of a\nGrecian heart to vibrate to its impression. Their characteristic\nfondness of fame is known and acknowledged; but this applause, though by\nthem in itself extravagantly valued, was not a mere empty, flattering\nsound: for, from the constitutions prevailing in nearly every state of\nGreece, it was the sure conductor to domestic dignity, to political\npower, and to commanding sway in the public deliberations. The first\noffices of the state, and the prime trusts of the government, were open\nto that distinguished artist whose admired performances had secured the\nuniversal suffrage. They were often without seeking offered by popular\ngratitude to his acceptance; nay, sometimes with honest violence forced\non his unwilling reception. Thus the principles of interest, ambition,\npopularity, confessedly some of the most powerful that guide the conduct\nof mankind, were called forth in aid of that natural bent or disposition\nwhich had induced the man to cultivate any particular art: and the\nconsequence was such as might be expected from the efficiency of such\noperative motives, surpassing merit and supreme excellence.\n\nAnother species of national encouragement, nearly connected with this,\nwas the certainty which the eminent artist enjoyed that, whenever the\noccasion offered, his talents would be employed to erect, or to decorate\nwith the labours of his pencil or his chissel, the temples, the\ntheatres, the porticoes, the places of public assembling of the cities\nof Greece; where his works, contributing amply to his fortune from their\nmunificent reward, would contribute more to his fame when exposed to the\nscrutinizing view of that intelligent people. He had no cause to fear\nthat his abilities would be overlooked or buried in obscurity by\nprepossession, partiality, or prejudice: he had no apprehensions to\ndread from the effects of interested relationship, of commanding\ninfluence, of narrow local attachment, or of proud and presuming\nignorance. If his merit was acknowledged his employment was sure; and he\nwas even courted by the general voice to exert his talents for the\npublic credit, not depressed in their exertion by mean and base\naffections. He was not obliged to solicit for employment with\nhumiliating applications, and, when employed, to labour under the\nmultiplied disadvantages of deficient or stinted means, of complying\nwith vitiated judgments, of submitting to the senseless whims of folly\nand caprice. Full scope was given to the fertility of his imagination,\nto the extent of his genius, to the vigour of his fancy: whilst all the\npowers of his mind and all the vigour of his body, all the ingenuity of\nhis head and all the dexterity of his hands, were impelled to their best\nperformances by the consciousness that all deficiencies would be\nimputable solely to himself, the public being free from the slightest\nsuspicion of having either curbed or confined his abilities. As no\nelevation of genius made him giddy, hence grace and beauty, strength and\nvigour, expression and passion, respectively marked his performances;\nand his fame became connected with the edifices, the statues, the\npaintings, that ornamented the country, which struck every eye, and\nwhich none beheld without recollecting with respect the able artist\nwhose workmanship had produced them.\n\nThe effect of this kind of encouragement on the arts was great, is\nmanifest, and need be but slightly mentioned: yet, perhaps, may appear\nthe more striking from contrasting it with some practices of more modern\ntimes. In them the first city in the world has disgraced itself with\nall who have eyesight, by employing to erect its most expensive\nbuilding[n] an architect _because the man was a citizen_: and, in more\ncountries of Europe than one, statues and paintings are exhibited as\ncommemorative of illustrious public deeds, where contorsion and\nextravagance, where flutter and glare, form the predominant characters;\nbut they dishonour those countries, on account of the artists engaged to\nexecute them being employed because they were the favourites of despots,\nthe flatterers of titled harlots, or the relations of directors; whilst\nmen of the first talents and merit in their profession were pining in\nindigence and obscurity, unnoticed and unfriended. The consequences of\nthis latter conduct none will say that we have reason to boast of from\nthe superlative excellence of modern art; but what has been felt from it\nmay readily induce us to believe how essentially its direct opposite\nmust have promoted the progress of the arts in Greece.\n\n[Footnote n: The Mansion House of London.]\n\nThe vast sums expended by the Grecian states on their public monuments\nand their public works (vast, indeed, when the comparative value of\nmoney then and now is considered), tended much to assist the progress of\nthe arts, and to aid their high improvement. For, though we have\nunquestionable reason to believe that the sordid motive of private\nprofit was not the first principle in the minds of those great artists\nwho have immortalized their names by their works, yet without a certain\nliberality of expence their ideas could not have been realized, their\nworks could not have been executed; and that liberality they found\nlimited commonly by nothing but the public means, and often not even by\nthem. We know from the gravest and clearest authorities with what lavish\nexpenditure scenic representations were exhibited at Athens, with what\nunbounded magnificence her temples, her tribunals, her porticoes were\ndecorated: we equally well know the splendor of Corinth, a near\nneighbouring city; the incalculable price of its paintings, the\ninestimable value of its statues, and that from the coalesced mass of\nits molten metals there arose, at its destruction, a compound more\nhighly prized by the Romans than gold. The other principal cities were\nalike studious of embellishment, alike emulous of ornament, and in\nvarious proportions enjoyed them according to the circumstances of time\nand situation: but Delphi and Olympia, the grand seats of the national\nreligion and the national games, concentered in themselves each choicest\nproduction of genius, each happiest effort of art, each transcendent\ndisplay of excellence; amassed with a judgment that delighted, with a\nprofusion that surprized, and with an expence that astonished.\n\nThis generous spirit in carrying on and completing public works which,\nthough it may sometimes be pushed to an excess (as, perhaps, was the\ncase in Greece), is so truly honourable to any people, had, and\nobviously must have had, the most decided influence in advancing and\nimproving the arts, and in giving them that degree of perfection which\nhas never yet been exceeded, nor even equalled. It excited exertion, by\nthe security that its efforts would not be suffered to remain\nundisplayed, but would be invited to add loveliness to the beautiful,\nand splendor to the magnificent; it roused the full force of emulation,\nby the certainty that superior merit would receive superior rewards, and\nneither be permitted to languish in privacy nor to pine in poverty; and\nit invigorated the boldest flights of genius, by the firm assurance that\nthere was a prevalent spirit ready to countenance, prepared to adopt,\nand anxious to encourage them. It would be no small absurdity to affirm\nthat fortune, as well as fame, had not attractions for a Grecian artist;\nfor it must ever be absurd to affirm generally the absence of the\noperation of general principles: and therefore the great pecuniary\nrecompences which their talents procured had, doubtless, a proportionate\ninfluence on all their labours to improve their art; though, it may be,\nless in that region than in many other countries. And from the combined\nefficacy of these several kinds of national encouragement, which, like\ndifferent branches of the same tree, spring all from the same root, the\nprogress of the arts was furthered so essentially, was advanced so\nhighly, as we have heard of with wonder, and have seen with amazement.\n\nSo complex having been the causes, so slow and progressively gradual the\nprogress of the Fine Arts, highly grateful must it be to every truly\nBritish breast to consider the rapid advances they have made in this\nfavoured Isle within the last fifty years: advances certainly unmatched\nin their former history, as in that period they have arisen from the\nutmost imbecility of infantine weakness (indeed almost from\n_non-entity_) to a vigorous maturity that leaves far behind them the\nemasculate efforts and puny productions of all other contemporary\nEuropean nations. The causes of this unequalled improvement have\nnotoriously been the countenance and fostering protection of his present\nMajesty, an admirer and intelligent judge of their merit, and the\nardent spirit of emulation excited among the artists themselves by such\nexalted and distinguishing notice. These co-operating have produced an\nexertion of talents, a display of abilities, and emanations of genius\nthat always wore in existence, but which required concurring\ncircumstances to bring them into full action, and to cause them to\nexpand their latent energies. And had the general patronage been\ncorrespondent to these fortunate incidents, had not the fashionable\njargon of presumptuous, self-created, arbiters of taste, affecting to\ndespise National art, vitiated the public mind, or rather strengthened\nan ancient prejudice there floating, it is not easy to conceive how much\ngreater still would have been their progress. It is at least certain\nthat our ingenious young artists would have been amply encouraged to\nexert themselves, and not suffered, after the most promising exhibitions\nof dawning talents, to pine in indigence and wretchedness, to sink into\nobscurity and oblivion, or (like the illfated, but most meritorious\nProctor[o]) to hasten, in the very opening of life, the termination of\nmortal existence from the excruciating pressure of continued penury and\nmisery.\n\n[Footnote o: The fate of this ingenious youth deserves to be distinctly\nrecorded. Born of humble parentage in one of the more distant counties,\nhe had early manifested an admiration of the Arts, and, being admitted a\nstudent of the Royal Academy, eminently distinguished himself there by\nhis abilities and his industry. Applying peculiarly to Sculpture, soon\nafter the termination of his studies in the Academy he exhibited, at its\nannual Exhibition in Somerset-place, two models of unrivalled\nexcellence, which might, without fear of deterioration, have been placed\nin competition with the happiest productions of the best days of Grecian\nart, and which at the time met with their well-earned applause. But,\nalas! applause was his only reward: no wealthy patron took him by the\nhand, no affluent lover of the Arts enquired into, or assisted, his\ncircumstances; and his means being very confined, misery was his\nportion. He had however the soul of an Artist, and for a length of time\nbore up with manly fortitude against his distresses. The present worthy\nPresident of the Royal Academy, suspecting his situation, with the aid\nof the Council obtained for him from the Academy an annuity of 100l. a\nyear, to enable him to go to Italy, and improve himself there: but the\nunhappy youth had unavoidably contracted some trifling debts, which he\nwas utterly unable to discharge, and his mind was too delicately alive\nto every finer feeling to bear the thought of leaving this country\nwithout paying them. This circumstance, preying on his agitated spirits,\nand on a frame emaciated by the severest distress, caused his speedy\ndissolution, to the irreparable injury of the Arts. After his death it\nwas discovered that, for the last two years of his life, he had resided\nin a miserable cock-loft in the worst house in Clare market, which he\nhad rented for a shilling a week; and that his daily sustenance for that\ntime had been _only two dry biscuits with a draft of water from the\nmarket pump_.]\n\nThus having attempted to investigate the progress of the arts, and to\nwhat was owing that supreme excellence which they formerly attained, we\nseem to have reasonable grounds to conclude that it flowed from such\nnatural and moral causes as, at all times and in all cases, are known\npowerfully to affect the feelings and to actuate the conduct of man. No\nwhimsical refinements, no marvellous mysteries, no imaginary and\nfantastic theories have been had recourse to: but lighted on our way by\nthe irradiating torch of authentic history, and unseduced by the false\nglare of lying legends, we have not dared so much to affirm what, in\ncertain situations, our fellow-creatures MUST do, as to detail with some\ncare what in fact they DID do. If what we have here advanced has not\nthe attraction of novelty to allure, it is hoped that it is not\ndeficient in the recommendation of truth to convince. It has not been\nthought necessary formally to refute the sentiments of those profound\nPhilosophers, who have sagaciously discovered the causes of the\ninferiority of the arts in some countries and of their superiority in\nothers, and consequently the perfection to which they arrived in Greece,\nin the power of the solar beams in certain latitudes, in the influences\nof the atmosphere, and in those of terrestrial and celestial vapours:\nfor if the causes here assigned appear fully adequate to the end\nproduced, as we conceive they do, it must be idle to shew the inutility\nof others, gratuitously brought forth from the inexhaustible storehouse\nof fancy, and supported by any thing rather than solid reasoning. It\nmust be allowed that they very roundly assert, but as fallaciously\nargue, whenever they deign to argue on this subject: for mere\nassertions, positive, pompous, presuming, but assertions still, are the\ncommonest weapons of their warfare. And, possibly, it would neither be\nreputable to contest the specious subtilty of the sophisms of even such\nsages, nor honourable to conquer the powerless imbecility of their\nassertions.\n\nIt is but fair to avow that this enquiry into the progress of the arts\nhas not been entered on for the sole purpose of ascertaining, as far as\nwe were able, the causes of the surpassing excellence to which they were\ncarried in Greece, without at the same time intimating, with due\ndeference to superior judgments and to superior authority, the efficacy\nof the same causes, at all times and in all countries, in improving and\nexalting them. As human nature is the same at all periods, though\ndiversified in its exterior shew by the various customs, modes, and\nmanners, that variously prevail, it cannot be seriously doubted but that\nthose principles, which have been found by experience in one country to\npowerfully sway its conduct, and to incite its efforts in the Arts to\ntheir noblest productions, would be equally efficient and equally\nsuccessful elsewhere, were they fairly applied, and as vigorously\nexerted. We have no satisfactory reason for believing that either the\nmental or corporeal powers of man have degenerated in the succession of\nages: and we well know that, by the benefits of experience and\ninvention, considerable aids have been added to both, to methodize their\nmotions and to facilitate their operations. Our profounder and\nbetter-studied knowledge of Metaphysics, our improved skill in Natural\nPhilosophy and Mechanics, and our more accurate acquaintance with the\nprinciples of colours, with their combinations and their shades, all\nconfessedly tend to these points. Should then the same liberal public\nencouragement be displayed, by those possessed of the power of\ndisplaying it, as dignified the best days of Greece; should the same\nlabour, the same pains, the same study, the same industry, be used by\nmodern artists as distinguished their truly illustrious predecessors; we\nmight not vainly hope to see the arts carried to still greater\nperfection than they have ever yet attained; we might expect to behold\ntheir deficiencies supplied, their utilities increased, their energies\nenlarged, and their beauties augmented.\n\nOn national encouragement it becomes not the mediocrity of our talents\nand station to presume to decide; yet, possibly, it will not be judged\ntoo vauntingly confident to say that it should in all cases be spirited,\ngenerous, impartial, and should not be subjected to the caprices of\npower, to the varying humours of the transient depositaries of the\npublic confidence, nor to the inconstant and ever-mutable gusts of\npopular phrenzy. What effect such encouragement would have on the\nartists themselves can, indeed, be only conjectured; for such\nencouragement has never yet been exhibited in the modern world: but that\nconjecture is neither vague nor random, as it is guided by permanent\nprinciples, and directed by the known influence of steady affections on\nthe human heart. It may be affirmed then, with some assurance, that it\nwould inspirit their labours, that it would multiply their pains, that\nit would invigorate their studies, that it would augment their industry:\nfor such were heretofore its experienced consequences in similar cases,\nand therefore they are reasonably to be expected again. They would not\nwaste their youth in the riot of lawless pleasure, and so treasure up\nsickness and sorrow for the days of their prime: they would not spend\ntheir hours in the ceaseless pursuit of the intoxicating amusements of\nsome great capital: they would not lay out their whole attention on the\nlow and subordinate, but gainful, branches of their _trade_, in contempt\nof the superior features of their ART, and of its possible improvement:\nbut concentring all their powers, all their abilities, all their\nfaculties, in the advancement of their peculiar pursuit, would rapidly\nraise themselves from the drudgery of mechanical workmanship to the\nproud elevation of professional exertion. Thus the arts, advanced by so\nconspicuous a change of manners in their cultivators, and by an\nencouragement differing so widely from the paltry private patronage\npretending to that name, would attain that state of perfection to which\ntheir admirers fondly wish to see them carried; but which they must wish\nin vain till something like the changes here etched out shall have taken\nplace. And that what depends on the artists has not been too sanguinely\nsupposed, nor too strongly pictured, will surely not be asserted: for it\nhas only been supposed that they are men of common sense and natural\nfeelings; that they are not insensible to the allurements of each\ndignified distinction in life; that they have hearts that can be warmed\nand minds that can be roused.\n\nThat much higher ideas might justly be formed of some artists we can\npositively affirm from personal knowledge; as we know some who have\nreally the souls of Artists; who, even in present circumstances, instead\nof grovelling all their lives in mean and sordid occupations,\nadventurously dare to soar into the immense void of possible\nexcellence; and whose characters it would be highly grateful to portray,\nwere not the desire restrained by the consciousness of inability to do\njustice to their merits. Such men, indeed, by the vigour of their\ngenius, counteract the disadvantages to which they may be exposed, and,\nbursting the barriers of opposing obstacles with spirit all their own,\nimpart to the arts whatever of addition or improvement they receive;\nelucidating their obscurities, polishing their asperities, and lopping\ntheir luxuriancies: and their number might be increased to any given\namount. But until that halcyon period shall arrive, if it ever shall\narrive, when the arts shall be considered as real national objects, and\nreceive _real_ national encouragement (without which, it must be\nconfessed, all extraordinary progress in them is not _generally_ to be\nexpected), their beauty, their grace, their grandeur, depend on these\nmen alone. And conscious of the high ground whereon they stand, as the\nchampions of truth and nature against fashion and futility, and caprice\nand extravagance, and of the possible benefits resulting from their\nlabours in giving passion to the mute canvas, expression to the\ninanimate block, and magnificence to utility in each public edifice;\nthey will not suffer themselves to be discouraged by temporary neglect,\nnor to be disheartened by temporary preferences of the incapable and\nundeserving. They will strengthen their minds to encounter the provoking\ncriticisms of pert and petulant presumption; they will scorn the\ncontempts of self-conceited and ignorant folly, however highly seated;\nand they will meet with firm dignity the misjudging decisions of\npurse-proud affluence. And conscious worth shall crown them with a\nwreath of honour, greener than ever bloomed on the brow of an Olympic\nconqueror; their own hearts shall applaud them; their works shall form a\nlasting monument to the immortality of their names; and their fame shall\nfloat down the current of future ages with daily increasing strength,\nwith daily augmented splendor.\n\nThe final result then of our enquiry on this amusing and interesting\nsubject is, that we have the best grounds for concluding the progress of\nthe arts originally, and the great perfection to which they were carried\nin Greece, to have arisen from natural and moral causes of confessed\nefficacy, and not from any casual circumstances, extraneous to and\nindependent of man: and we deem it reasonable to think that the same\ncauses, operating as uncontroledly any where else within the extent of\nthe temperate climates, would most probably again produce the same\neffects. Far from indulging any licence of imagination, or from giving\nwing to its flights, it has been endeavoured rather carefully to detail\nfacts than wantonly to invent systems. Of the evidence, which to us has\nappeared convincing, the public will judge: of the rectitude of our\nintention in producing it we are sure, for it is only to incite public\nreward, to encourage study, and labour, and industry.\n\n\n\n\n    William Andrews Clark Memorial Library: University of California\n                      THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY\n\n\n                           _General Editors_\n\n    R. C. BOYS\n      University of Michigan\n\n    VINTON A. DEARING\n      University of California, Los Angeles\n\n    RALPH COHEN\n      University of California, Los Angeles\n\n    LAWRENCE CLARK POWELL\n      Wm. Andrews Clark Memorial Library\n\n\n            _Corresponding Secretary_: Mrs. EDNA C. DAVIS,\n                   Wm. Andrews Clark Memorial Library\n\nThe Society exists to make available inexpensive reprints (usually\nfacsimile reproductions) of rare seventeenth and eighteenth century\nworks. The editorial policy of the Society remains unchanged. As in the\npast, the editors welcome suggestions concerning publications. All\nincome of the Society is devoted to defraying cost of publication and\nmailing.\n\nAll correspondence concerning subscriptions in the United States and\nCanada should be addressed to the William Andrews Clark Memorial\nLibrary, 2205 West Adams Boulevard, Los Angeles 18, California.\nCorrespondence concerning editorial matters may be addressed to any of\nthe general editors. The membership fee is $3.00 a year for subscribers\nin the United States and Canada and 15/- for subscribers in Great\nBritain and Europe. British and European subscribers should address B.\nH. Blackwell, Broad Street, Oxford, England.\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\n              Publications for the eighth year [1953-1954]\n   (At least six items, most of them from the following list, will be\n                              reprinted.)\n\n     JOHN BAILLIE: _An Essay on the Sublime_ (1747). Introduction by\n     Samuel H. Monk.\n\n     Contemporaries of the _Tatler_ and _Spectator_. Introduction by\n     Richmond P. Bond.\n\n     _John Dart and George Ogle on Chaucer._ Introduction by William L.\n     Alderson.\n\n     JOHN T. DESAGULIERS: _The Newtonian System of the World the Best\n     Model of Government_ (1728). Introduction by Marjorie H. Nicolson.\n\n     _Sale Catalogue of Mrs. Piozzi's Effects_ (1816). Introduction by\n     John Butt.\n\n     M. C. SARBIEWSKI: _The Odes of Casimire_ (1646). Introduction by\n     Maren-Sofie Roestvig.\n\n     _Selections from Seventeenth-Century Songs._ Introduction by\n     Jennifer W. Angel.\n\n     _A Sermon Preached at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul_ (1745).\n     [Probably by Samuel Johnson]. Introduction by James L. Clifford.\n\nPublications for the first seven years (with the exception of Nos. 1-6,\nwhich are out of print) are available at the rate of $3.00 a year.\nPrices for individual numbers may be obtained by writing to the Society.\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\n                      THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY\n                _WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY_\n         2205 WEST ADAMS BOULEVARD, LOS ANGELES 18, CALIFORNIA\n\n                  Make check or money order payable to\n              THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.\n\n\n\n\n              PUBLICATIONS OF THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY\n\n\nFIRST YEAR (1946-1947)\n\n     Numbers 1-6 out of print.\n\n\nSECOND YEAR (1947-1948)\n\n     7. John Gay's _The Present State of Wit_ (1711); and a section on\n     Wit from _The English Theophrastus_ (1702).\n\n     8. Rapin's _De Carmine Pastorali_, translated by Creech (1684).\n\n     9. T. Hanmer's (?) _Some Remarks on the Tragedy of Hamlet_ (1736).\n\n     10. Corbyn Morris' _Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit,\n     etc._ (1744).\n\n     11. Thomas Purney's _Discourse on the Pastoral_ (1717).\n\n     12. Essays on the Stage, selected, with an Introduction by Joseph\n     Wood Krutch.\n\n\nTHIRD YEAR (1948-1949)\n\n     13. Sir John Falstaff (pseud.), _The Theatre_ (1720).\n\n     14. Edward Moore's _The Gamester_ (1753).\n\n     15. John Oldmixon's _Reflections on Dr. Swift's Letter to Harley_\n     (1712); and Arthur Mainwaring's _The British Academy_ (1712).\n\n     16. Nevil Payne's _Fatal Jealousy_ (1673).\n\n     17. Nicholas Rowe's _Some Account of the Life of Mr. William\n     Shakespeare_ (1709).\n\n     18. \"Of Genius,\" in _The Occasional Paper_, Vol. III, No. 10\n     (1719); and Aaron Hill's Preface to _The Creation_ (1720).\n\n\nFOURTH YEAR (1949-1950)\n\n     19. Susanna Centlivre's _The Busie Body_ (1709).\n\n     20. Lewis Theobold's _Preface to The Works of Shakespeare_ (1734).\n\n     21. _Critical Remarks on Sir Charles Grandison, Clarissa, and\n     Pamela_ (1754).\n\n     22. Samuel Johnson's _The Vanity of Human Wishes_ (1749) and Two\n     _Rambler_ papers (1750).\n\n     23. John Dryden's _His Majesties Declaration Defended_ (1681).\n\n     24. Pierre Nicole's _An Essay on True and Apparent Beauty in Which\n     from Settled Principles is Rendered the Grounds for Choosing and\n     Rejecting Epigrams_, translated by J. V. Cunningham.\n\n\nFIFTH YEAR (1950-1951)\n\n     25. Thomas Baker's _The Fine Lady's Airs_ (1709).\n\n     26. Charles Macklin's _The Man of the World_ (1792).\n\n     27. Frances Reynolds' _An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of\n     Taste, and of the Origin of Our Ideas of Beauty, etc._ (1785).\n\n     28. John Evelyn's _An Apologie for the Royal Party_ (1659); and _A\n     Panegyric to Charles the Second_ (1661).\n\n     29. Daniel Defoe's _A Vindication of the Press_ (1718).\n\n     30. Essays on Taste from John Gilbert Cooper's _Letters Concerning\n     Taste_, 3rd edition (1757), & John Armstrong's _Miscellanies_\n     (1770).\n\n\nSIXTH YEAR (1951-1952)\n\n     31. Thomas Gray's _An Elegy Wrote in a Country Church Yard_ (1751);\n     and _The Eton College Manuscript_.\n\n     32. Prefaces to Fiction; Georges de Scud\u00e9ry's Preface to _Ibrahim_\n     (1674), etc.\n\n     33. Henry Gally's _A Critical Essay_ on Characteristic-Writings\n     (1725).\n\n     34. Thomas Tyers' A Biographical Sketch of Dr. Samuel Johnson\n     (1785).\n\n     35. James Boswell, Andrew Erskine, and George Dempster. _Critical\n     Strictures on the New Tragedy of Elvira, Written by Mr. David\n     Malloch_ (1763).\n\n     36. Joseph Harris's _The City Bride_ (1696).\n\n\nSEVENTH YEAR (1952-1953)\n\n     37. Thomas Morrison's _A Pindarick Ode on Painting_ (1767).\n\n     38. John Phillips' _A Satyr Against Hypocrites_ (1655).\n\n     39. Thomas Warton's _A History of English Poetry_.\n\n     40. Edward Bysshe's _The Art of English Poetry_ (1708).\n\n     41. Bernard Mandeville's \"_A Letter to Dion_\" (1732).\n\n     42. Prefaces to Four Seventeenth-Century Romances.\n\n\n\n\n                   *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's note:\n\nVariations in spelling, punctuation and hyphenation have been retained\nexcept in obvious cases of typographical error:\n\n  \"... joined increased (conveniencies->) conveniences\"\n  \"... which nothing imperfect (eould->) would please,\"\n\nFootnotes interrupting paragraphs have been moved to the end of\nthe respective paragraphs.","title":"Dissertation on the Progress of the Fine Arts","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":12673}