{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_61317/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_61317","id":"gutenberg_61317","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/61317","summary":null,"tags":["Aesthetics -- Early works to 1800","Art -- Philosophy","Art, Greek","Category: Art"],"text":"REFLECTIONS ON THE PAINTING AND SCULPTURE OF THE _GREEKS_.\n\n\n\n\n                               REFLECTIONS\n                                 ON THE\n                         PAINTING and SCULPTURE\n                                   OF\n                               THE GREEKS:\n                                  WITH\n                    INSTRUCTIONS for the CONNOISSEUR,\n                                   AND\n                   An ESSAY on GRACE in Works of Art.\n\n                             Translated from\n              The _German_ Original of the Abb\u00e9 WINKELMANN,\n               Librarian of the VATICAN, F. R. S. &c. &c.\n\n                         By HENRY FUSSELI, A.M.\n\n                             [Illustration]\n\n                                 LONDON:\n           Printed for the TRANSLATOR, and Sold by A. MILLAR,\n                          in the Strand, 1765.\n\n\n\n\nTO\n\nThe Lord SCARSDALE.\n\n\nMY LORD,\n\nWith becoming gratitude for your Lordship\u2019s condescension in granting\nsuch a noble Asylum to a Stranger, I humbly presume to shelter this\nTranslation under your Lordship\u2019s Patronage.\n\nIf I have been able to do justice to my Author, your Lordship\u2019s accurate\nJugment, and fine Taste, will naturally protect his Work: But I must\nrely wholly on your known Candour and Goodness for the pardon of many\nimperfections in the language.\n\nI am, with the most profound respect,\n\n    MY LORD,\n\n    Your LORDSHIP\u2019S\n\n          Most obliged, most obedient, and most humble Servant,\n\n                                                           Henry Fusseli.\n\n    LONDON,\n    10 April, 1765.\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: GRAIIS INGENIUM &c.]\n\n\n\n\n    ON THE\n    IMITATION\n    OF THE\n    PAINTING and SCULPTURE of the GREEKS.\n\n\nI. NATURE.\n\nTo the Greek climate we owe the production of TASTE, and from thence\nit spread at length over all the politer world. Every invention,\ncommunicated by foreigners to that nation, was but the feed of what it\nbecame afterwards, changing both its nature and size in a country,\nchosen, as _Plato_[1] says, by Minerva, to be inhabited by the Greeks, as\nproductive of every kind of genius.\n\nBut this TASTE was not only original among the Greeks, but seemed also\nquite peculiar to their country: it seldom went abroad without loss; and\nwas long ere it imparted its kind influences to more distant climes.\nIt was, doubtless, a stranger to the northern zones, when Painting and\nSculpture, those offsprings of Greece, were despised there to such a\ndegree, that the most valuable pieces of _Corregio_ served only for\nblinds to the windows of the royal stables at Stockholm.\n\nThere is but one way for the moderns to become great, and perhaps\nunequalled; I mean, by imitating the antients. And what we are told of\n_Homer_, that whoever understands him well, admires him, we find no less\ntrue in matters concerning the antient, especially the Greek arts. But\nthen we must be as familiar with them as with a friend, to find Laocoon\nas inimitable as _Homer_. By such intimacy our judgment will be that\nof _Nicomachus_: _Take these eyes_, replied he to some paltry critick,\ncensuring the Helen of Zeuxis, _Take my eyes, and she will appear a\ngoddess_.\n\nWith such eyes _Michael Angelo_, _Raphael_, and _Poussin_, considered\nthe performances of the antients. They imbibed taste at its source; and\nRaphael particularly in its native country. We know, that he sent young\nartists to Greece, to copy there, for his use, the remains of antiquity.\n\nAn antient Roman statue, compared to a Greek one, will generally appear\nlike _Virgil_\u2019s Diana amidst her Oreads, in comparison of the Nausicaa of\n_Homer_, whom he imitated.\n\nLaocoon was the standard of the Roman artists, as well as ours; and the\nrules of _Polycletus_ became the rules of art.\n\nI need not put the reader in mind of the negligences to be met with in\nthe most celebrated antient performances: the Dolphin at the feet of\nthe Medicean Venus, with the children, and the Parerga of the Diomedes\nby _Dioscorides_, being commonly known. The reverse of the best Egyptian\nand Syrian coins seldom equals the head, in point of workmanship. Great\nartists are wisely negligent, and even their errors instruct. Behold\ntheir works as _Lucian_ bids you behold the Zeus of _Phidias_; _Zeus\nhimself, not his footstool_.\n\nIt is not only _Nature_ which the votaries of the Greeks find in their\nworks, but still more, something superior to nature; ideal beauties,\nbrain-born images, as _Proclus_ says[2].\n\nThe most beautiful body of ours would perhaps be as much inferior to the\nmost beautiful Greek one, as Iphicles was to his brother Hercules. The\nforms of the Greeks, prepared to beauty, by the influence of the mildest\nand purest sky, became perfectly elegant by their early exercises. Take\na Spartan youth, sprung from heroes, undistorted by swaddling-cloths;\nwhose bed, from his seventh year, was the earth, familiar with wrestling\nand swimming from his infancy; and compare him with one of our young\nSybarits, and then decide which of the two would be deemed worthy, by\nan artist, to serve for the model of a Theseus, an Achilles, or even a\nBacchus. The latter would produce a Theseus fed on roses, the former a\nTheseus fed on flesh, to borrow the expression of _Euphranor_.\n\nThe grand games were always a very strong incentive for every Greek youth\nto exercise himself. Whoever aspired to the honours of these was obliged,\nby the laws, to submit to a trial of ten months at Elis, the general\nrendezvous; and there the first rewards were commonly won by youths, as\n_Pindar_ tells us.[3]_To be like the God-like Diagoras_, was the fondest\nwish of every youth.\n\nBehold the swift Indian outstripping in pursuit the hart: how briskly his\njuices circulate! how flexible, how elastic his nerves and muscles! how\neasy his whole frame! Thus _Homer_ draws his heroes, and his Achilles he\neminently marks for \u201cbeing swift of foot.\u201d\n\nBy these exercises the bodies of the Greeks got the great and manly\nContour observed in their statues, without any bloated corpulency. The\nyoung Spartans were bound to appear every tenth day naked before the\nEphori, who, when they perceived any inclinable to fatness, ordered them\na scantier diet; nay, it was one of _Pythagoras_\u2019s precepts, to beware of\ngrowing too corpulent; and, perhaps for the same reason, youths aspiring\nto wrestling-games were, in the remoter ages of Greece, during their\ntrial, confined to a milk diet.\n\nThey were particularly cautious in avoiding every deforming custom; and\n_Alcibiades_, when a boy, refusing to learn to play on the flute, for\nfear of its discomposing his features, was followed by all the youth of\nAthens.\n\nIn their dress they were professed followers of nature. No modern\nstiffening habit, no squeezing stays hindered Nature from forming easy\nbeauty; the fair knew no anxiety about their attire, and from their loose\nand short habits the Spartan girls got the epithet of Ph\u00e6nomirides.\n\nWe know what pains they took to have handsome children, but want to be\nacquainted with their methods: for certainly _Quillet_, in his Callip\u00e6dy,\nfalls short of their numerous expedients. They even attempted changing\nblue eyes to black ones, and games of beauty were exhibited at Elis, the\nrewards consisting of arms consecrated to the temple of Minerva. How\ncould they miss of competent and learned judges, when, as _Aristotle_\ntells us, the Grecian youths were taught drawing expressly for that\npurpose? From their fine complexion, which, though mingled with a vast\ndeal of foreign blood, is still preserved in most of the Greek islands,\nand from the still enticing beauty of the fair sex, especially at Chios;\nwe may easily form an idea of the beauty of the former inhabitants, who\nboasted of being Aborigines, nay, more antient than the moon.\n\nAnd are not there several modern nations, among whom beauty is too common\nto give any title to pre-eminence? Such are unanimously accounted the\nGeorgians and the Kabardinski in the Crim.\n\nThose diseases which are destructive of beauty, were moreover unknown to\nthe Greeks. There is not the least hint of the small-pox, in the writings\nof their physicians; and _Homer_, whose portraits are always so truly\ndrawn, mentions not one pitted face. Venereal plagues, and their daughter\nthe English malady, had not yet names.\n\nAnd must we not then, considering every advantage which nature bestows,\nor art teaches, for forming, preserving, and improving beauty, enjoyed\nand applied by the Grecians; must we not then confess, there is the\nstrongest probability that the beauty of their persons excelled all we\ncan have an idea of?\n\nArt claims liberty: in vain would nature produce her noblest offsprings,\nin a country where rigid laws would choak her progressive growth, as\nin Egypt, that pretended parent of sciences and arts: but in Greece,\nwhere, from their earliest youth, the happy inhabitants were devoted to\nmirth and pleasure, where narrow-spirited formality never restrained the\nliberty of manners, the artist enjoyed nature without a veil.\n\nThe Gymnasies, where, sheltered by public modesty, the youths exercised\nthemselves naked, were the schools of art. These the philosopher\nfrequented, as well as the artist. _Socrates_ for the instruction of a\nCharmides, Autolycus, Lysis; _Phidias_ for the improvement of his art\nby their beauty. Here he studied the elasticity of the muscles, the\never varying motions of the frame, the outlines of fair forms, or the\nContour left by the young wrestler on the sand. Here beautiful nakedness\nappeared with such a liveliness of expression, such truth and variety of\nsituations, such a noble air of the body, as it would be ridiculous to\nlook for in any hired model of our academies.\n\nTruth springs from the feelings of the heart. What shadow of it therefore\ncan the modern artist hope for, by relying upon a vile model, whose soul\nis either too base to feel, or too stupid to express the passions, the\nsentiment his object claims? unhappy he! if experience and fancy fail him.\n\nThe beginning of many of _Plato_\u2019s dialogues, supposed to have been held\nin the Gymnasies, cannot raise our admiration of the generous souls\nof the Athenian youth, without giving us, at the same time, a strong\npresumption of a suitable nobleness in their outward carriage and bodily\nexercises.\n\nThe fairest youths danced undressed on the theatre; and _Sophocles_, the\ngreat _Sophocles_, when young, was the first who dared to entertain his\nfellow-citizens in this manner. _Phryne_ went to bathe at the Eleusinian\ngames, exposed to the eyes of all Greece, and rising from the water\nbecame the model of Venus Anadyomene. During certain solemnities the\nyoung Spartan maidens danced naked before the young men: strange this may\nseem, but will appear more probable, when we consider that the christians\nof the primitive church, both men and women, were dipped together in the\nsame font.\n\nThen every solemnity, every festival, afforded the artist opportunity to\nfamiliarize himself with all the beauties of Nature.\n\nIn the most happy times of their freedom, the humanity of the Greeks\nabhorred bloody games, which even in the Ionick Asia had ceased long\nbefore, if, as some guess, they had once been usual there. _Antiochus\nEpiphanes_, by ordering shews of Roman gladiators, first presented them\nwith such unhappy victims; and custom and time, weakening the pangs of\nsympathizing humanity, changed even these games into schools of art.\nThere _Ctesias_ studied his dying gladiator, in whom you might descry\n\u201chow much life was still left in him[4].\u201d\n\nThese frequent occasions of observing Nature, taught the Greeks to go on\nstill farther. They began to form certain general ideas of beauty, with\nregard to the proportions of the inferiour parts, as well as of the whole\nframe: these they raised above the reach of mortality, according to the\nsuperiour model of some ideal nature.\n\nThus _Raphael_ formed his Galatea, as we learn by his letter to Count\nBaltazar Castiglione[5], where he says, \u201cBeauty being so seldom found\namong the fair, I avail myself of a certain ideal image.\u201d\n\nAccording to those ideas, exalted above the pitch of material models, the\nGreeks formed their gods and heroes: the profile of the brow and nose of\ngods and goddesses is almost a streight line. The same they gave on their\ncoins to queens, &c. but without indulging their fancy too much. Perhaps\nthis profile was as peculiar to the antient Greeks, as flat noses and\nlittle eyes to the Calmucks and Chinese; a supposition which receives\nsome strength from the large eyes of all the heads on Greek coins and\ngems.\n\nFrom the same ideas the Romans formed their Empresses on their coins.\nLivia and Agrippina have the profile of Artemisia and Cleopatra.\n\nWe observe, nevertheless, that the Greek artists in general, submitted to\nthe law prescribed by the Thebans: \u201cTo do, under a penalty, their best in\nimitating Nature.\u201d For, where they could not possibly apply their easy\nprofile, without endangering the resemblance, they followed Nature, as we\nsee instanced in the beauteous head of Julia, the daughter of Titus, done\nby _Euodus_[6].\n\nBut to form a \u201cjust resemblance, and, at the same time, a handsomer\none,\u201d being always the chief rule they observed, and which _Polygnotus_\nconstantly went by; they must, of necessity, be supposed to have had in\nview a more beauteous and more perfect Nature. And when we are told, that\nsome artists imitated _Praxiteles_, who took his concubine _Cratina_ for\nthe model of his Cnidian Venus; or that others formed the graces from\n_Lais_; it is to be understood that they did so, without neglecting these\ngreat laws of the art. Sensual beauty furnished the painter with all that\nnature could give; ideal beauty with the awful and sublime; from that he\ntook the _Humane_, from this the _Divine_.\n\nLet any one, sagacious enough to pierce into the depths of art, compare\nthe whole system of the Greek figures with that of the moderns, by which,\nas they say, nature alone is imitated; good heaven! what a number of\nneglected beauties will he not discover!\n\nFor instance, in most of the modern figures, if the skin happens to be\nany where pressed, you see there several little smart wrinkles: when,\non the contrary, the same parts, pressed in the same manner on Greek\nstatues, by their soft undulations, form at last but one noble pressure.\nThese master-pieces never shew us the skin forcibly stretched, but softly\nembracing the firm flesh, which fills it up without any tumid expansion,\nand harmoniously follows its direction. There the skin never, as on\nmodern bodies, appears in plaits distinct from the flesh.\n\nModern works are likewise distinguished from the antient by parts; a\ncrowd of small touches and dimples too sensibly drawn. In antient works\nyou find these distributed with sparing sagacity, and, as relative to\na completer and more perfect Nature, offered but as hints, nay, often\nperceived only by the learned.\n\nThe probability still increases, that the bodies of the Greeks, as well\nas the works of their artists, were framed with more unity of system, a\nnobler harmony of parts, and a completeness of the whole, above our lean\ntensions and hollow wrinkles.\n\nProbability, \u2019tis true, is all we can pretend to: but it deserves the\nattention of our artists and connoisseurs the rather, as the veneration\nprofessed for the antient monuments is commonly imputed to prejudice, and\nnot to their excellence; as if the numerous ages, during which they have\nmouldered, were the only motive for bestowing on them exalted praises,\nand setting them up for the standards of imitation.\n\nSuch as would fain deny to the Greeks the advantages both of a more\nperfect Nature and of ideal Beauties, boast of the famous _Bernini_,\nas their great champion. He was of opinion, besides, that Nature was\npossessed of every requisite beauty: the only skill being to discover\nthat. He boasted of having got rid of a prejudice concerning the Medicean\nVenus, whose charms he at first thought peculiar ones; but, after many\ncareful researches, discovered them now and then in Nature[7].\n\nHe was taught then, by the Venus, to discover beauties in common Nature,\nwhich he had formerly thought peculiar to that statue, and but for it,\nnever would have searched for them. Follows it not from thence, that the\nbeauties of the Greek statues being discovered with less difficulty than\nthose of Nature, are of course more affecting; not so diffused, but more\nharmoniously united? and if this be true, the pointing out of Nature as\nchiefly imitable, is leading us into a more tedious and bewildered road\nto the knowledge of perfect beauty, than setting up the ancients for\nthat purpose: consequently _Bernini_, by adhering too strictly to Nature,\nacted against his own principles, as well as obstructed the progress of\nhis disciples.\n\nThe imitation of beauty is either reduced to a single object, and is\n_individual_, or, gathering observations from single ones, _composes of\nthese one whole_. The former we call copying, drawing a portrait; \u2019tis\nthe straight way to Dutch forms and figures; whereas the other leads to\ngeneral beauty, and its ideal images, and is the way the Greeks took. But\nthere is still this difference between them and us: they enjoying daily\noccasions of seeing beauty, (suppose even not superior to ours,) acquired\nthose ideal riches with less toil than we, confined as we are to a few\nand often fruitless opportunities, ever can hope for. It would be no easy\nmatter, I fancy, for our nature, to produce a frame equal in beauty to\nthat of Antinous; and surely no idea can soar above the more than human\nproportions of a deity, in the Apollo of the Vatican, which is a compound\nof the united force of Nature, Genius, and Art.\n\nTheir imitation discovering in the one every beauty diffused through\nNature, shewing in the other the pitch to which the most perfect Nature\ncan elevate herself, when soaring above the senses, will quicken the\ngenius of the artist, and shorten his discipleship: he will learn to\nthink and draw with confidence, seeing here the fixed limits of human and\ndivine beauty.\n\nBuilding on this ground, his hand and senses directed by the Greek rule\nof beauty, the modern artist goes on the surest way to the imitation\nof Nature. The ideas of unity and perfection, which he acquired in\nmeditating on antiquity, will help him to combine, and to ennoble the\nmore scattered and weaker beauties of our Nature. Thus he will improve\nevery beauty he discovers in it, and by comparing the beauties of nature\nwith the ideal, form rules for himself.\n\nThen, and not sooner, he, particularly the painter, may be allowed to\ncommit himself to Nature, especially in cases where his art is beyond the\ninstruction of the old marbles, to wit, in drapery; then, like _Poussin_,\nhe may proceed with more liberty; for \u201ca timid follower will never get\nthe start of his leaders, and he who is at a loss to produce something\nof his own, will be a bad manager of the productions of another,\u201d as\n_Michael Angelo_ says; Minds favoured by Nature,\n\n              _Quibus Arte benigna,_\n    _Et meliore luto, finxit pr\u00e6cordia Titan,_\n\nhave here a plain way to become originals.\n\nThus the account _de Piles_ gives, ought to be understood, that\n_Raphael_, a short time before he was carried off by death, intended\nto forsake the marbles, in order to addict himself wholly to Nature.\nTrue antient taste would most certainly have guided him through every\nmaze of common Nature; and whatever observations, whatever new ideas\nhe might have reaped from that, they would all, by a kind of chymical\ntransmutation, have been changed to his own essence and soul.\n\nHe, perhaps, might have indulged more variety; enlarged his draperies;\nimproved his colours, his light and shadow: but none of these\nimprovements would have raised his pictures to that high esteem they\ndeserve, for that noble Contour, and that sublimity of thoughts, which he\nacquired from the ancients.\n\nNothing would more decisively prove the advantages to be got by imitating\nthe ancients, preferably to Nature, than an essay made with two youths\nof equal talents, by devoting the one to antiquity, the other to Nature:\nthis would draw Nature as he finds her; if Italian, perhaps he might\npaint like _Caravaggio_; if Flemish, and lucky, like _Jac. Jordans_; if\nFrench, like _Stella_: the other would draw her as she directs, and paint\nlike _Raphael_.\n\n\nII. CONTOUR.\n\nBut even supposing that the imitation of Nature could supply all the\nartist wants, she never could bestow the precision of Contour, that\ncharacteristic distinction of the ancients.\n\nThe noblest Contour unites or circumscribes every part of the most\nperfect Nature, and the ideal beauties in the figures of the Greeks;\nor rather, contains them both. _Euphranor_, famous after the epoch of\n_Zeuxis_, is said to have first ennobled it.\n\nMany of the moderns have attempted to imitate this Contour, but very few\nwith success. The great _Rubens_ is far from having attained either its\nprecision or elegance, especially in the performances which he finished\nbefore he went to Italy, and studied the antiques.\n\nThe line by which Nature divides completeness from superfluity is but\na small one, and, insensible as it often is, has been crossed even by\nthe best moderns; while these, in shunning a meagre Contour, became\ncorpulent, those, in shunning that, grew lean.\n\nAmong them all, only _Michael Angelo_, perhaps, may be said to have\nattained the antique; but only in strong muscular figures, heroic frames;\nnot in those of tender youth; nor in female bodies, which, under his bold\nhand, grew Amazons.\n\nThe Greek artist, on the contrary, adjusted his Contour, in every\nfigure, to the breadth of a single hair, even in the nicest and most\ntiresome performances, as gems. Consider the Diomedes and Perseus of\n_Dioscorides_[8], Hercules and Iole by _Teucer_[9], and admire the\ninimitable Greeks.\n\n_Parrhasius_, they say, was master of the correctest Contour.\n\nThis Contour reigns in Greek figures, even when covered with drapery, as\nthe chief aim of the artist; the beautiful frame pierces the marble like\na transparent _Coan_ cloth.\n\nThe high-stiled Agrippina, and the three vestals in the royal cabinet\nat Dresden, deserve to be mentioned as eminent proofs of this. This\nAgrippina seems not the mother of Nero, but an elder one, the spouse\nof Germanicus. She much resembles another pretended Agrippina, in the\nparlour of the library of St. Marc, at Venice[10]. Ours is a sitting\nfigure, above the size of Nature, her head inclined on her right hand;\nher fine face speaks a soul \u201cpining in thought,\u201d absorbed in pensive\nsorrow, and senseless to every outward impression. The artist, I suppose,\nintended to draw his heroine in the mournful moment she received the\nnews of her banishment to Pandataria.\n\nThe three vestals deserve our esteem from a double title: as being\nthe first important discoveries of Herculaneum, and models of the\nsublimest drapery. All three, but particularly one above the natural\nsize, would, with regard to that, be worthy companions of the Farnesian\n_Flora_, and all the other boasts of antiquity. The two others seem,\nby their resemblance to each other, productions of the same hand, only\ndistinguished by their heads, which are not of equal goodness. On the\nbest the curled hairs, running in furrows from the forehead, are tied on\nthe neck: on the other the hair being smooth on the scalp, and curled on\nthe front, is gathered behind, and tied with a ribband: this head seems\nof a modern hand, but a good one.\n\nThere is no veil on these heads; but that makes not against their being\nvestals: for the priestesses of Vesta (I speak on proof) were not always\nveiled; or rather, as the drapery seems to betray, the veil, which was\nof one piece with the garments, being thrown backwards, mingles with the\ncloaths on the neck.\n\n\u2019Tis to these three inimitable pieces that the world owes the first hints\nof the ensuing discovery of the subterranean treasures of Herculaneum.\n\nTheir discovery happened when the same ruins that overwhelmed the\ntown had nearly extinguished the unhappy remembrance of it: when the\ntremendous fate that spoke its doom was only known by the account which\nPliny gives of his uncle\u2019s death.\n\nThese great master-pieces of the Greek art were transplanted, and\nworshipped in Germany, long before Naples could boast of one single\nHerculanean monument.\n\nThey were discovered in the year 1706 at Portici near Naples, in a\nruinous vault, on occasion of digging the foundations of a villa, for\nthe Prince d\u2019Elbeuf, and immediately, with other new discovered marble\nand metal statues, came into the possession of Prince Eugene, and were\ntransported to Vienna.\n\nEugene, who well knew their value, provided a Sala Terrena to be built\nexpressly for them, and a few others: and so highly were they esteemed,\nthat even on the first rumour of their sale, the academy and the artists\nwere in an uproar, and every body, when they were transported to Dresden,\nfollowed them with heavy eyes.\n\nThe famous _Matielli_, to whom\n\n    _His rule Polyclet, his chissel Phidias gave,_\n\n    Algarotti.\n\ncopied them in clay before their removal, and following them some years\nafter, filled Dresden with everlasting monuments of his art: but even\nthere he studied the drapery of his priestesses, (drapery his chief\nskill!) till he laid down his chissel, and thus gave the most striking\nproof of their excellence.\n\n\nIII. DRAPERY.\n\nBy Drapery is to be understood all that the art teaches of covering the\nnudities, and folding the garments; and this is the third prerogative of\nthe ancients.\n\nThe Drapery of the vestals above, is grand and elegant. The smaller\nfoldings spring gradually from the larger ones, and in them are lost\nagain, with a noble freedom, and gentle harmony of the whole, without\nhiding the correct Contour. How few of the moderns would stand the test\nhere!\n\nJustice, however, shall not be refused to some great modern artists, who,\nwithout impairing nature or truth, have left, in certain cases, the road\nwhich the ancients generally pursued. The Greek Drapery, in order to help\nthe Contour, was, for the most part, taken from thin and wet garments,\nwhich of course clasped the body, and discovered the shape. The robe of\nthe Greek ladies was extremely thin; thence its epithet of Peplon.\n\nNevertheless the reliefs, the pictures, and particularly the busts of the\nancients, are instances that they did not always keep to this undulating\nDrapery[11].\n\nIn modern times the artists were forced to heap garments, and sometimes\nheavy ones, on each other, which of course could not fall into the\nflowing folds of the ancients. Hence the large-folded Drapery, by which\nthe painter and sculptor may display as much skill as by the ancient\nmanner. _Carlo Marat_ and _Francis Solimena_ may be called the chief\nmasters of it: but the garments of the new Venetian school, by passing\nthe bounds of nature and propriety, became stiff as brass.\n\n\nIV. EXPRESSION.\n\nThe last and most eminent characteristic of the Greek works is a noble\nsimplicity and sedate grandeur in Gesture and Expression. As the bottom\nof the sea lies peaceful beneath a foaming surface, a great soul lies\nsedate beneath the strife of passions in Greek figures.\n\n\u2019Tis in the face of Laocoon this soul shines with full lustre, not\nconfined however to the face, amidst the most violent sufferings. Pangs\npiercing every muscle, every labouring nerve; pangs which we almost\nfeel ourselves, while we consider\u2014not the face, nor the most expressive\nparts\u2014only the belly contracted by excruciating pains: these however, I\nsay, exert not themselves with violence, either in the face or gesture.\nHe pierces not heaven, like the Laocoon of _Virgil_; his mouth is rather\nopened to discharge an anxious overloaded groan, as _Sadolet_ says;\nthe struggling body and the supporting mind exert themselves with equal\nstrength, nay balance all the frame.\n\nLaocoon suffers, but suffers like the Philoctetes of _Sophocles_: we\nweeping feel his pains, but wish for the hero\u2019s strength to support his\nmisery.\n\nThe Expression of so great a soul is beyond the force of mere nature. It\nwas in his own mind the artist was to search for the strength of spirit\nwith which he marked his marble. Greece enjoyed artists and philosophers\nin the same persons; and the wisdom of more than one Metrodorus directed\nart, and inspired its figures with more than common souls.\n\nHad Laocoon been covered with a garb becoming an antient sacrificer,\nhis sufferings would have lost one half of their Expression. _Bernini_\npretended to perceive the first effects of the operating venom in the\nnumbness of one of the thighs.\n\nEvery action or gesture in Greek figures, not stamped with this\ncharacter of sage dignity, but too violent, too passioniate, was called\n\u201cParenthyrsos.\u201d\n\nFor, the more tranquillity reigns in a body, the fitter it is to draw\nthe true character of the soul; which, in every excessive gesture,\nseems to rush from her proper centre, and being hurried away by\nextremes becomes unnatural. Wound up to the highest pitch of passion,\nshe may force herself upon the duller eye; but the true sphere of her\naction is simplicity and calmness. In Laocoon sufferings alone had\nbeen Parenthyrsos; the artist therefore, in order to reconcile the\nsignificative and ennobling qualities of his soul, put him into a\nposture, allowing for the sufferings that were necessary, the next to a\nstate of tranquillity: a tranquillity however that is characteristical:\nthe soul will be herself\u2014this individual\u2014not the soul of mankind; sedate,\nbut active; calm, but not indifferent or drowsy.\n\nWhat a contrast! how diametrically opposite to this is the taste of our\nmodern artists, especially the young ones! on nothing do they bestow\ntheir approbation, but contorsions and strange postures, inspired with\nboldness; this they pretend is done with spirit, with _Franchezza_.\nContrast is the darling of their ideas; in it they fancy every\nperfection. They fill their performances with comet-like excentric souls,\ndespising every thing but an Ajax or a Capaneus.\n\nArts have their infancy as well as men; they begin, as well as the\nartist, with froth and bombast: in such buskins the muse of \u00c6schilus\nstalks, and part of the diction in his Agamemnon is more loaded with\nhyperboles than all Heraclitus\u2019s nonsense. Perhaps the primitive Greek\npainters drew in the same manner that their first good tragedian thought\nin.\n\nIn all human actions flutter and rashness precede, sedateness and\nsolidity follow: but time only can discover, and the judicious will\nadmire these only: they are the characteristics of great masters; violent\npassions run away with their disciples.\n\nThe sages in the art know the difficulties hid under that air of easiness:\n\n                          _ut sibi quivis_\n    _Speret idem, sudet multum, frustraque laboret_\n    _Ausus idem._\n\n    Hor.\n\n_La Fage_, though an eminent designer, was not able to attain the purity\nof ancient taste. Every thing is animated in his works; they demand, and\nat the same time dissipate, your attention, like a company striving to\ntalk all at once.\n\nThis noble simplicity and sedate grandeur is also the true\ncharacteristical mark of the best and maturest Greek writings, of the\nepoch and school of _Socrates_. Possessed of these qualities _Raphael_\nbecame eminently great, and he owed them to the ancients.\n\nThat great soul of his, lodged in a beauteous body, was requisite for the\nfirst discovery of the true character of the ancients: he first felt all\ntheir beauties, and (what he was peculiarly happy in!) at an age when\nvulgar, unfeeling, and half-moulded souls overlook every higher beauty.\n\nYe that approach his works, teach your eyes to be sensible of those\nbeauties, refine your taste by the true antique, and then that solemn\ntranquillity of the chief figures in his _Attila_, deemed insipid by the\nvulgar, will appear to you equally significant and sublime. The Roman\nbishop, in order to divert the Hun from his design of assailing Rome,\nappears not with the air of a Rhetor, but as a venerable man, whose very\npresence softens uproar into peace; like him drawn by Virgil:\n\n    _Tum pietate gravem ac meritis, si forte virum quem_\n    _Conspexere, silent, adrectisque auribus adstant:_\n\n    \u00c6n. I.\n\nfull of confidence in God, he faces down the barbarian: the two Apostles\ndescend not with the air of slaughtering angels, but (if sacred may be\ncompared with profane) like Jove, whose very nod shakes Olympus.\n\n_Algardi_, in his celebrated representation of the same story, done in\nbas-relief on an altar in St. Peter\u2019s church at Rome, was either too\nnegligent, or too weak, to give this active tranquillity of his great\npredecessor to the figures of his Apostles. There they appear like\nmessengers of the Lord of Hosts: here like human warriors with mortal\narms.\n\nHow few of those we call connoisseurs have ever been able to understand,\nand sincerely to admire, the grandeur of expression in the St. _Michael\nof Guido_, in the church of the Capuchins at Rome! they prefer commonly\nthe Archangel of _Concha_, whose face glows with indignation and\nrevenge[12]; whereas _Guido_\u2019s Angel, after having overthrown the fiend\nof God and man, hovers over him unruffled and undismayed.\n\nThus, to heighten the hero of _The Campaign_, victorious Marlborough, the\nBritish poet paints the avenging Angel hovering over Britannia with the\nlike serenity and awful calmness.\n\nThe royal gallery at Dresden contains now, among its treasures, one of\n_Raphael_\u2019s best pictures, witness Vasari, &c. a Madonna with the Infant;\nSt. Sixtus and St. Barbara kneeling, one on each side, and two Angels in\nthe fore-part.\n\nIt was the chief altar-piece in the cloister of St. Sixtus at Piacenza,\nwhich was crouded by connoisseurs, who came to see this Raphael, in\nthe same manner as Thespis was in the days of old, for the sake of the\nbeautiful Cupid of _Praxiteles_.\n\nBehold the Madonna! her face brightens with innocence; a form above the\nfemale size, and the calmness of her mien, make her appear as already\nbeatified: she has that silent awfulness which the ancients spread over\ntheir deities. How grand, how noble is her Contour!\n\nThe child in her arms is elevated above vulgar children, by a face\ndarting the beams of divinity through every smiling feature of harmless\nchildhood.\n\nSt. Barbara kneels, with adoring stillness, at her side: but being far\nbeneath the majesty of the chief figure, the great artist compensated her\nhumbler graces with soft enticing charms.\n\nThe Saint opposite to her is venerable with age. His features seem to\nbear witness of his sacred youth.\n\nThe veneration which St. Barbara declares for the Madonna, expressed in\nthe most sensible and pathetic manner, by her fine hands clasped on her\nbreast, helps to support the motion of one of St. Sixtus\u2019s hands, by\nwhich he utters his extasy, better becoming (as the artist judiciously\nthought, and chose for variety\u2019s sake) manly strength, than female\nmodesty.\n\nTime, \u2019tis true, has withered the primitive splendour of this picture,\nand partly blown off its lively colours; but still the soul, with which\nthe painter inspired his godlike work, breathes life through all its\nparts.\n\nLet those that approach this, and the rest of _Raphael_\u2019s works, in hopes\nof finding there the trifling Dutch and Flemish beauties, the laboured\nnicety of _Netscher_, or _Douw_, flesh _ivorified_ by _Van der Werf_,\nor even the licked manner of some of _Raphael_\u2019s living countrymen; let\nthose, I say, be told, that _Raphael_ was not a great master for them.\n\n\nV. WORKMANSHIP IN SCULPTURE.\n\nAfter these remarks on the Nature, the Contour, the Drapery, the\nsimplicity and grandeur of Expression in the performances of the Greek\nartists, we shall proceed to some inquiries into their method of working.\n\nTheir models were generally made of wax; instead of which the moderns\nused clay, or such like unctuous stuff, as seeming fitter for expressing\nflesh, than the more gluey and tenacious wax.\n\nA method however not new, though more frequent in our times: for we know\neven the name of that ancient who first attempted modelling in wet clay;\n\u2019twas _Dibutades_ of Sicyon; and _Arcesilaus_, the friend of _Lucullus_,\ngrew more famous by his models of clay than his other performances.\nHe made for _Lucullus_ a figure of clay representing _Happiness_, and\nreceived 60,000 sesterces: and _Octavius_, a Roman Knight, paid him a\ntalent for the model only of a large dish, in plaister, which he designed\nto have finished in gold.\n\nOf all materials, clay might be allowed to be the fittest for shaping\nfigures, could it preserve its moistness; but losing that by time or\nfire, its solider parts, contracting by degrees, lessen the bulk of the\nmass; and that which is formed, being of different diameters, grows\nsooner dry in some parts than in others, and the dry ones being shrunk to\na smaller size, there will be no proportion kept in the whole.\n\nFrom this inconvenience wax is always free: it loses nothing of its bulk;\nand there are also means to give it the smoothness of flesh, which is\nrefused to modelling; viz. you make your model of clay, mould it with\nplaister, and cast the wax over it.\n\nBut for transferring their models to the marble, the Greeks seem to\nhave possessed some peculiar advantages, which are now lost: for you\ndiscover, every where in their works, the traces of a confident hand; and\neven in those of inferior rank, it would be no easy matter to prove a\nwrong cut. Surely hands so steady, so secure, must of necessity have been\nguided by rules more determinate and less arbitrary than we can boast of.\n\nThe usual method of our sculptors is, to quarter the well-prepared model\nwith horizontals and perpendiculars, and, as is common in copying a\npicture, to draw a relative number of squares on the marble.\n\nThus, regular gradations of a scale being supposed, every small square\nof the model has its corresponding one on the marble. But the contents\nof the relative masses not being determinable by a measured surface, the\nartist, though he gives to his stone the resemblance of the model, yet,\nas he only depends on the precarious aid of his eye, he shall never cease\nwavering, as to his doing right or wrong, cutting too flat or too deep.\n\nNor can he find lines to determine precisely the outlines, or the Contour\nof the inward parts, and the centre of his model, in so fixed and\nunchangeable a manner, as to enable him, exactly, to transfer the same\nContours upon his stone.\n\nTo all this add, that, if his work happens to be too voluminous for one\nsingle hand, he must trust to those of his journeymen and disciples,\nwho, too often, are neither skilful nor cautious enough to follow their\nmaster\u2019s design; and if once the smallest trifle be cut wrong, for it is\nimpossible to fix, by this method, the limits of the cuts, all is lost.\n\nIt is to be remarked in general, that every sculptor, who carries on his\nchisselings their whole length, on first fashioning his marble, and does\nnot prepare them by gradual cuts for the last final strokes; it is to be\nremarked, I say, that he never can keep his work free from faults.\n\nAnother chief defect in that method is this: the artist cannot help\ncutting off, every moment, the lines on his block; and though he restore\nthem, cannot possibly be sure of avoiding mistakes.\n\nOn account of this unavoidable uncertainty, the artists found themselves\nobliged to contrive another method, and that which the French academy at\nRome first made use of for copying antiques, was applied by many even to\nmodelled performances.\n\nOver the statue which you want to copy, you fix a well-proportioned\nsquare, dividing it into equally distant degrees, by plummets: by these\nthe outlines of the figure are more distinctly marked than they could\npossibly be by means of the former method: they moreover afford the\nartist an exact measure of the more prominent or lower parts, by the\ndegrees in which these parts are near them, and in short, allow him to go\non with more confidence.\n\nBut the undulations of a curve being not determinable by a single\nperpendicular, the Contours of the figure are but indifferently indicated\nto the artist; and among their many declinations from a straight surface,\nhis tenour is every moment lost.\n\nThe difficulty of discovering the real proportions of the figures, may\nalso be easily imagined: they seek them by horizontals placed across the\nplummets. But the rays reflected from the figure through the squares,\nwill strike the eye in enlarged angles, and consequently appear bigger,\nin proportion as they are high or low to the point of view.\n\nNevertheless, as the ancient monuments must be most cautiously dealt\nwith, plummets are still of use in copying them, as no surer or easier\nmethod has been discovered: but for performances to be done from models\nthey are unfit for want of precision.\n\n_Michael Angelo_ went alone a way unknown before him, and (strange to\ntell!) untrod since the time of that genius of modern sculpture.\n\nThis Phidias of latter times, and next to the Greeks, hath, in all\nprobability, hit the very mark of his great masters. We know at least no\nmethod so eminently proper for expressing on the block every, even the\nminutest, beauty of the model.\n\n_Vasari_[13] seems to give but a defective description of this method,\nviz. _Michael Angelo_ took a vessel filled with water, in which he\nplaced his model of wax, or some such indissoluble matter: then, by\ndegrees, raised it to the surface of the water. In this manner the\nprominent parts were unwet, the lower covered, \u2019till the whole at length\nappeared. Thus says _Vasari_, he cut his marble, proceeding from the more\nprominent parts to the lower ones.\n\n_Vasari_, it seems, either mistook something in the management of his\nfriend, or by the negligence of his account gives us room to imagine it\nsomewhat different from what he relates.\n\nThe form of the vessel is not determined; to raise the figure from\nbelow would prove too troublesome, and presupposes much more than this\nhistorian had a mind to inform us of.\n\n_Michael Angelo_, no doubt, thoroughly examined his invention, its\nconveniencies and inconveniencies, and in all probability observed the\nfollowing method.\n\nHe took a vessel proportioned to his model; for instance, an oblong\nsquare: he marked the surface of its sides with certain dimensions, and\nthese he transferred afterwards, with regular gradations, on the marble.\nThe inside of the vessel he marked to the bottom with degrees. Then he\nlaid, or, if of wax, fastened his model in it; he drew, perhaps, a bar\nover the vessel suitable to its dimensions, according to whose number he\ndrew, first, lines on his marble, and immediately after, the figure; he\npoured water on the model till it reached its outmost points, and after\nhaving fixed upon a prominent part, he drew off as much water as hindered\nhim from seeing it, and then went to work with his chissel, the degrees\nshewing him how to go on; if, at the same time, some other part of the\nmodel appeared, it was copied too, as far as seen.\n\nWater was again carried off, in order to let the lower parts appear; by\nthe degrees he saw to what pitch it was reduced, and by its smoothness\nhe discovered the exact surfaces of the lower parts; nor could he go\nwrong, having the same number of degrees to guide him, upon his marble.\n\nThe water not only pointed him out the heights or depths, but also the\nContour of his model; and the space left free on the insides to the\nsurface of the water, whose largeness was determined by the degrees of\nthe two other sides, was the exact measure of what might safely be cut\ndown from the block.\n\nHis work had now got the first form, and a correct one: the levelness of\nthe water had drawn a line, of which every prominence of the mass was\na point; according to the diminution of the water the line sunk in a\nhorizontal direction, and was followed by the artist \u2019till he discovered\nthe declinations of the prominences, and their mingling with the lower\nparts. Proceeding thus with every degree, as it appeared, he finished the\nContour, and took his model out of the water.\n\nHis figure wanted beauty: he again poured water to a proper height over\nhis model, and then numbering the degrees to the line described by the\nwater, he descried the exact height of the protuberant parts; on these he\nlevelled his rule, and took the measure of the distance, from its verge\nto the bottom; and then comparing all he had done with his marble, and\nfinding the same number of degrees, he was geometrically sure of success.\n\nRepeating his task, he attempted to express the motion and re-action of\nnerves and muscles, the soft undulations of the smaller parts, and every\nimitable beauty of his model. The water insinuating itself, even into\nthe most inaccessible parts, traced their Contour with the correctest\nsharpness and precision.\n\nThis method admits of every possible posture. In profile especially, it\ndiscovers every inadvertency; shews the Contour of the prominent and\nlower parts, and the whole diameter.\n\nAll this, and the hope of success, presupposes a model formed by skilful\nhands, in the true taste of antiquity.\n\nThis is the way by which _Michael Angelo_ arrived at immortality.\nFame and rewards conspired to procure him what leisure he wanted, for\nperformances which required so much care.\n\nBut the artist of our days, however endowed by nature and industry with\ntalents to raise himself, and even though he perceive precision and truth\nin this method, is forced to exert his abilities for getting bread rather\nthan honour: he of course rests in his usual sphere, and continues to\ntrust in an eye directed by years and practice.\n\nNow this eye, by the observations of which he is chiefly ruled, being\nat last, though by a great deal of uncertain practice, become almost\ndecisive: how refined, how exact might it not have been, if, from early\nyouth, acquainted with never-changing rules!\n\nAnd were young artists, at their first beginning to shape the clay\nor form the wax, so happy as to be instructed in this sure method of\n_Michael Angelo_, which was the fruit of long researches, they might with\nreason hope to come as near the Greeks as he did.\n\n\nVI. PAINTING.\n\nGreek Painting perhaps would share all the praises bestowed on their\nSculpture, had time and the barbarity of mankind allowed us to be\ndecisive on that point.\n\nAll the Greek painters are allowed is Contour and Expression.\nPerspective, Composition, and Colouring, are denied them; a judgment\nfounded on some bas-reliefs, and the new-discovered ancient (for we dare\nnot say Greek) pictures, at and near Rome, in the subterranean vaults of\nthe palaces of M\u00e6cenas, Titus, Trajan, and the Antonini; of which but\nabout thirty are preserved entire, some being only in Mosaic.\n\n_Turnbull_, to his treatise on ancient painting, has subjoined a\ncollection of the most known ancient pictures, drawn by _Camillo\nPaderni_, and engraved by _Mynde_; and these alone give some value to the\nmagnificent and abused paper of his work. Two of them are copied from\noriginals in the cabinet of the late Dr. _Mead_.\n\nThat _Poussin_ much studied the pretended _Aldrovandine_ Nuptials; that\ndrawings are found done by _Annibal Carracci_, from the presumed _Marcius\nCoriolanus_; and that there is a most striking resemblance between the\nheads of _Guido_, and those on the Mosaic representing _Jupiter_ carrying\noff _Europa_, are remarks long since made.\n\nIndeed, if ancient Painting were to be judged by these, and such like\nremains of _Fresco_ pictures, Contour and Expression might be wrested\nfrom it in the same manner. For the pictures, with figures as big as\nlife, pulled off with the walls of the Herculanean theatre, afford but\na very poor idea of the Contour and Expression of the ancient painters.\nTheseus, the conqueror of the Minotaur, worshipped by the Athenian\nyouths; Flora with Hercules and a Faunus; the pretended judgment of the\nDecemvir Appius Claudius, are on the testimony of an artist who saw them,\nof a Contour as mean as faulty; and the heads want not only Expression,\nbut those in the Claudius even Character.\n\nBut even this is an evident instance of the meanness of the artists: for\nthe science of beautiful Proportions, of Contour, and Expression, could\nnot be the exclusive privilege of Greek sculptors alone.\n\nHowever, though I am for doing justice to the ancients, I have no\nintention to lessen the merit of the moderns.\n\nIn Perspective there is no comparison between them and the ancients,\nwhom no earned defence can intitle to any superiority in that science.\nThe laws of Composition and Ordonnance seem to have been but imperfectly\nknown by the ancients: the reliefs of the times when the Greek arts were\nflourishing at Rome, are instances of this. The accounts of the ancient\nwriters, and the remains of Painting are likewise, in point of Colouring,\ndecisive in favour of the moderns.\n\nThere are several other objects of Paintings which, in modern times, have\nattained greater perfection: such are landscapes and cattle pieces. The\nancients seem not to have been acquainted with the handsomer varieties of\ndifferent animals in different climes, if we may conclude from the horse\nof M. Aurelius; the two horses in Monte Cavallo; the pretended Lysippean\nhorses above the portal of St. Mark\u2019s church at Venice; the Farnesian\nbull, and other animals of that groupe.\n\nI observe, by the bye, that the ancients were careless of giving to their\nhorses the diametrical motion of their legs; as we see in the horses at\nVenice, and the ancient coins: and in that they have been followed, nay\neven defended, by some ignorant moderns.\n\n\u2019Tis chiefly to oil-painting that our landscapes, and especially those\nof the Dutch, owe their beauties: by that their colours acquired more\nstrength and liveliness; and even nature herself seems to have given them\na thicker, moister atmosphere, as an advantage to this branch of the art.\n\nThese, and some other advantages over the ancients, deserve to be set\nforth with more solid arguments than we have hitherto had.\n\n\nVII. ALLEGORY.\n\nThere is one other important step left towards the atchievement of the\nart: but the artist, who, boldly forsaking the common path, dares to\nattempt it, finds himself at once on the brink of a precipice, and starts\nback dismayed.\n\nThe stories of martyrs and saints, fables and metamorphoses, are almost\nthe only objects of modern painters\u2014repeated a thousand times, and varied\nalmost beyond the limits of possibility, every tolerable judge grows sick\nat them.\n\nThe judicious artist falls asleep over a Daphne and Apollo, a Proserpine\ncarried off by Pluto, an Europa, &c. he wishes for occasions to shew\nhimself a poet, to produce significant images, to paint Allegory.\n\nPainting goes beyond the senses: _there_ is its most elevated pitch, to\nwhich the Greeks strove to raise themselves, as their writings evince.\nParrhasius, like Aristides, a painter of the soul, was able to express\nthe character even of a whole people: he painted the Athenians as mild\nas cruel, as fickle as steady, as brave as timid. Such a representation\nowes its possibility only to the allegorical method, whose images convey\ngeneral ideas.\n\nBut here the artist is lost in a desart. Tongues the most savage, which\nare entirely destitute of abstracted ideas, containing no word whose\nsense could express memory, space, duration, &c. these tongues, I say,\nare not more destitute of general signs, than painting in our days. The\npainter who thinks beyond his palette longs for some learned apparatus,\nby whose stores he might be enabled to invest abstracted ideas with\nsensible and meaning images. Nothing has yet been published of this\nkind, to satisfy a rational being; the essays hitherto made are not\nconsiderable, and far beneath this great design. The artist himself\nknows best in what degree he is satisfied with Ripa\u2019s Iconology, and the\nemblems of ancient nations, by Van Hooghe.\n\nHence the greatest artists have chosen but vulgar objects. _Annibal\nCaracci_, instead of representing in general symbols and sensible images\nthe history of the Farnesian family, as an allegorical poet, wasted all\nhis skill in fables known to the whole world.\n\nGo, visit the galleries of monarchs, and the publick repositories of\nart, and see what difference there is between the number of allegorical,\npoetical, or even historical performances, and that of fables, saints, or\nmadonnas.\n\nAmong great artists, _Rubens_ is the most eminent, who first, like a\nsublime poet, dared to attempt this untrodden path. His most voluminous\ncomposition, the gallery of Luxembourg, has been communicated to the\nworld by the hands of the best engravers.\n\nAfter him the sublimest performance undertaken and finished, in that\nkind, is, no doubt, the cupola of the imperial library at Vienna, painted\nby _Daniel Gran_, and engraved by _Sedelmayer_. The Apotheosis of\nHercules at Versailles, done by _Le Moine_, and alluding to the Cardinal\n_Hercules de Fleury_, though deemed in France the most august of\ncompositions, is, in comparison of the learned and ingenious performance\nof the German artist, but a very mean and short-sighted Allegory,\nresembling a panegyric, the most striking beauties of which are relative\nto the almanack. The artist had it in his power to indulge grandeur, and\nhis flipping the occasion is astonishing: but even allowing, that the\nApotheosis of a minister was all that he ought to have decked the chief\ncieling of a royal palace with, we nevertheless see through his fig-leaf.\n\nThe artist would require a work, containing every image with which any\nabstracted idea might be poetically inverted; a work collected from\nall mythology, the best poets of all ages, the mysterious philosophy\nof different nations, the monuments of the ancients on gems, coins,\nutensils, &c. This magazine should be distributed into several classes,\nand, with proper applications to peculiar possible cases, adapted to the\ninstruction of the artist. This would, at the same time, open a vast\nfield for imitating the ancients, and participating of their sublimer\ntaste.\n\nThe taste in our decorations, which, since the complaints of _Vitruvius_,\nhath changed for the worse, partly by the grotesques brought in vogue by\n_Morto da Feltro_, partly by our trifling house-painting, might also,\nfrom more intimacy with the ancients, reap the advantages of reality and\ncommon sense.\n\nThe Caricatura-carvings, and favourite shells, those chief supports of\nour ornaments, are full as unnatural as the candle-sticks of _Vitruvius_,\nwith their little castles and palaces: how easy would it be, by the help\nof Allegory, to give some learned convenience to the smallest ornament!\n\n    _Reddere person\u00e6 scit convenientia cuique._\n\n    Hor.\n\nPaintings of ceilings, doors, and chimney-pieces, are commonly but the\nexpletives of these places, because they cannot be gilt all over. Not\nonly they have not the least relation to the rank and circumstances of\nthe proprietor, but often throw some ridicule or reflection upon him.\n\n\u2019Tis an abhorrence of barrenness that fills walls and rooms; and pictures\nvoid of thought must supply the vacuum.\n\nHence the artist, abandoned to the dictates of his own fancy, paints, for\nwant of Allegory, perhaps a satire on him to whom he owes his industry;\nor, to shun this Charybdis, finds himself reduced to paint figures void\nof any meaning.\n\nNay, he may often find it difficult to meet even with those, \u2019till at last\n\n    \u2014\u2014_velut \u00e6gri Somnia, van\u00e6 Finguntur Species._\n\n    Hor.\n\nThus Painting is degraded from its most eminent prerogative, the\nrepresentation of invisible, past and future things.\n\nIf pictures be sometimes met with, which might be significant in some\nparticular place, they often lose that property by stupid and wrong\napplications.\n\nPerhaps the master of some new building\n\n    _Dives agris, dives positis in f\u0153nore nummis_\n\n    Hor.\n\nmay, without the least compunction for offending the rules of\nperspective, place figures of the smallest size above the vast doors\nof his apartments and salloons. I speak here of those ornaments which\nmake part of the furniture; not of figures which are often, and for good\nreasons, set up promiscuously in collections.\n\nThe decorations of architecture are often as ill-chosen. Arms and\ntrophies deck a hunting-house as nonsensically, as Ganymede and the\neagle, Jupiter and Leda, figure it among the reliefs of the brazen gates\nof St. Peter\u2019s church at Rome.\n\nArts have a double aim: to delight and to instruct. Hence the greatest\nlandscape-painters think, they have fulfilled but half their task in\ndrawing their pieces without figures.\n\nLet the artist\u2019s pencil, like the pen of Aristotle, be impregnated with\nreason; that, after having satiated the eye, he may nourish the mind: and\nthis he may obtain by Allegory; investing, not hiding his ideas. Then,\nwhether he chuse some poetical object himself, or follow the dictates of\nothers, he shall be inspired by his art, shall be fired with the flame\nbrought down from heaven by Prometheus, shall entertain the votary of\nart, and instruct the mere lover of it.\n\n\n\n\n    A\n    LETTER,\n    CONTAINING\n    OBJECTIONS\n    AGAINST\n    The foregoing REFLEXIONS.\n\n\nSIR,\n\nAs you have written on the Greek arts and artists, I wish you had made\nyour treatise as much the object of your caution as the Greek artists\nmade their works; which, before dismissing them, they exhibited to\npublick view, in order to be examined by everybody, and especially by\ncompetent judges of the art. The trial was held during the grand, chiefly\nthe Olympian, games; and all Greece was interested on \u00c6tion\u2019s producing\nhis picture of the nuptials of Alexander and Roxana. You, Sir, wanted a\nProxenidas to be judged by, as well as that artist; and had it not been\nfor your mysterious concealment, I might have communicated your treatise,\nbefore its publication, to some learned men and connoisseurs of my\nacquaintance, without mentioning the author\u2019s name.\n\nOne of them visited Italy twice, where he devoted all his time to a most\nanxious examination of painting, and particularly several months to each\neminent picture, at the very place where it was painted; the only method,\nyou know, to form a connoisseur. The judgment of a man able to tell you\nwhich of Guido\u2019s altar-pieces is painted on taffeta, or linnen, what sort\nof wood Raphael chose for his transfiguration, &c. the judgment of such a\nman, I fancy, must be allowed to be decisive.\n\nAnother of my acquaintance has studied antiquity: he knows it by the very\nsmell;\n\n    _Callet & Artificem solo deprendere Odore._\n\n    Sectan. Sat.\n\nHe can tell you the number of knots on Hercules\u2019s club; has reduced\nNestor\u2019s goblet to the modern measure: nay, is suspected of meditating\nsolutions to all the questions proposed by Tiberius to the grammarians.\n\nA third, for several years past, has neglected every thing but hunting\nafter ancient coins. Many a new discovery we owe to him; especially some\nconcerning the history of the ancient coiners; and, as I am told, he is\nto rouse the attention of the world by a Prodromus concerning the coiners\nof Cyzicum.\n\nWhat a number of reproaches might you have escaped, had you submitted\nyour Essay to the judgment of these gentlemen! they were pleased to\nacquaint me with their objections, and I should be sorry, for your\nhonour, to see them published.\n\nAmong other objections, the first is surprized at your passing by the\ntwo Angels, in your description of the Raphael in the royal cabinet at\nDresden; having been told, that a Bolognese painter, in mentioning this\npiece, which he saw at St. Sixtus\u2019s at Piacenza, breaks into these terms\nof admiration: O! what Angels of Paradise[14]! by which he supposes those\nAngels to be the most beautiful figures of the picture.\n\nThe same person would reproach you for having described that picture in\nthe manner of Raguenet[15].\n\nThe second concludes the beard of Laocoon to be as worthy of your\nattention as his contracted belly: for every admirer of Greek works, says\nhe, must pay the same respect to the beard of Laocoon, which father Labat\npaid to that of the Moses of Michael Angelo.\n\nThis learned Dominican,\n\n    _Qui mores hominum multorum vidit & urbes_,\n\nhas, after so many centuries, drawn from this very statue an evident\nproof of the true fashion in which Moses wore his own individual beard,\nand whose imitation must, of course, be the distinguishing mark of every\ntrue Jew[16].\n\nThere is not the least spark of learning, says he, in your remarks on the\nPeplon of the three vestals: he might perhaps, on the very inflection of\nthe veil, have discovered to you as many curiosities as Cuper himself\nfound on the edge of the veil of Tragedy in the Apotheosis of Homer[17].\n\nWe also want proof of the vestals being really Greek performances: our\nreason fails us too often in the most obvious things. If unhappily the\nmarble of these figures should be proved to be no Lychnites, they are\nlost, and your treatise too: had you but slightly told us their marble\nwas large-grained, that would have been a sufficient proof of their\nauthenticity; for it would be somewhat difficult to determine the bigness\nof the grains with such exactness as to distinguish the Greek marble from\nthe Roman of Luna. But the worst is, they are even denied the title of\nvestals.\n\nThe third mentioned some heads of Livia and Agrippina, without that\npretended profile of yours. Here he thinks you had the most lucky\noccasion to talk of that kind of nose by the ancients called _Quadrata_,\nas an ingredient of beauty. But you no doubt know, that the noses of\nsome of the most famous Greek statues, viz. the Medicean Venus, and\nthe Picchinian Meleager, are much too thick for becoming the model of\nbeauty, in that kind, to our artists.\n\nI shall not, however, gall you with all the doubts and objections\nraised against your treatise, and repeated to nauseousness, upon the\narrival of an Academician, the Margites of our days, who, being shewed\nyour treatise, gave it a slight glance, then laid it aside, offended\nas it were at first sight. But it was easy to perceive that he wanted\nhis opinion to be asked, which we accordingly all did. \u201cThe author,\nsaid he very peremptorily, seems not to have been at much pains with\nthis treatise: I cannot find above four or five quotations, and those\nnegligently inserted; no chapter, no page, cited; he certainly collected\nhis remarks from books which he is ashamed to produce.\u201d\n\nYet cannot I help introducing another gentleman, sharp-sighted enough\nto pick out something that had escaped all my attention; viz. that the\nGreeks were the first inventors of Painting and Sculpture; an assertion,\nas he was pleased to express himself, entirely false, having been told it\nwas the Egyptians, or some people still more ancient, and unknown to him.\n\nEven the most whimsical humour may be turned to profit: nevertheless, I\nthink it manifest that you intended to talk only of good Taste in those\narts; and the first Elements of an art have the same proportion to good\nTaste in it, as the seed has to the fruit. That the art was still in its\ninfancy among the Egyptians, when it had attained the highest degree of\nperfection among the Greeks, may be seen by examining one single gem:\nyou need only consider the head of _Ptolom\u00e6us Philopator_ by Aulus, and\nthe two figures adjoining to it done by an Egyptian[18], in order to be\nconvinced of the little merit this nation could pretend to in point of\nart.\n\nThe form and taste of their Painting have been ascertained by\nMiddleton.[19] The pictures of persons as big as life, on two mummies\nin the royal cabinet of antiquities at Dresden, are evident instances\nof their incapacity. But these relicks being curious, in several other\nrespects, I shall hereafter subjoin a short account of them.\n\nI cannot, my friend, help allowing some reason for several of these\nobjections. Your negligence in your quotations was, no doubt, somewhat\nprejudicial to your authenticity: the art of changing blue eyes to black\nones, certainly deserved an authority. You imitate Democritus; who\nbeing asked, \u201cWhat is man?\u201d every body knows what was his reply. What\nreasonable creature will submit to read all Greek scholiasts!\n\n    _Ibit eo, quo vis, qui Zonam perdidit_\u2014\n\n    Hor.\n\nConsidering, however, how easily the human mind is biassed, either by\nfriendship or animosity, I took occasion from these objections to examine\nyour treatise with more exactness; and shall now, by the most impartial\ncensure, strive to clear myself from every imputation of prepossession in\nyour favour.\n\nI will pass by the first and second page, though something might\nbe said on your comparison of the Diana with the Nausicaa, and the\napplication: nor would it have been amiss, had you thrown some more light\non the remark concerning the misused pictures of Corregio (very likely\nborrowed from Count Tessin\u2019s letters), by giving an account of the other\nindignities which the pictures of the best artists, at the same time, met\nwith at Stockholm.\n\nIt is well known that, after the surrender of Prague to Count Konigsmark,\nthe 15th of July 1648, the most precious pictures of the Emperor Rodolph\nII. were carried off to Sweden[20]. Among these were some pictures\nof Corregio, which the Emperor had been presented with by their first\npossessor, Duke Frederick of Mantua; two of them being the famous Leda,\nand a Cupid handling his bow[21]. Christina, endowed at that time rather\nwith scholastic learning than taste, treated these treasures as the\nEmperor Claudius did an Alexander of Apelles; who ordered the head to be\ncut off, and that of Augustus to fill its place[22]. In the same manner\nheads, hands, feet were here cut off from the most beautiful pictures;\na carpet was plastered over with them, and the mangled pieces fitted up\nwith new heads, &c. Those that fortunately escaped the common havock,\namong which were the pieces of Corregio, came afterwards, together with\nseveral other pictures, bought by the Queen at Rome, into the possession\nof the Duke of Orleans, who purchased 250 of them, and among those eleven\nof Corregio, for 9000 Roman crowns.\n\nBut I am not contented with your charging only the northern countries\nwith barbarism, on account of the little esteem they paid to the arts.\nIf good taste is to be judged in this manner, I am afraid for our French\nneighbours. For having taken Bonn, the residence of the Elector of\nCologne, after the death of Max. Henry, they ordered the largest pictures\nto be cut out of their frames, without distinction, in order to serve for\ncoverings to the waggons, in which the most valuable furniture of the\nelectoral castle was carried off for France. But, Sir, do not presume\non my continuing with mere historical remarks: I shall proceed with my\nobjections; after making the two following general observations.\n\nI. You have written in a style too concise for being distinct. Were\nyou afraid of being condemned to the penalty of a Spartan, who could\nnot restrain himself to only three words, perhaps that of reading\nPicciardin\u2019s Pisan War? Distinctness is required where universal\ninstruction is the end. Meats are to suit the taste of the guests, rather\nthan that of the cooks,\n\n          \u2014\u2014_C\u0153n\u00e6 fercula nostr\u00e6_\n    _Malim convivis quam placuisse coquis._\n\nII. There appears, in almost every line of yours, the most passionate\nattachment to antiquity; which perhaps I shall convince you of, by the\nfollowing remarks.\n\nThe first particular objection I have to make is against your third page.\nRemember, however, that my passing by two pages is very generous dealing:\n\n              _non temere a me_\n    _Quivis ferret idem:_\n\n    Hor.\n\nbut let us now begin a formal trial.\n\nThe author talks of certain negligences in the Greek works, which ought\nto be considered suitably to Lucian\u2019s precepts concerning the Zeus of\nPhidias: \u201cZeus himself, not his footstool;\u201d[23] though perhaps he could\nnot be charged with any fault in the foot-stool, but with a very grievous\none in the statue.\n\nIs it no fault that Phidias made his Zeus of so enormous a bulk, as\nalmost to reach the cieling of the temple, which must infallibly have\nbeen thrown down, had the god taken it in his head to rise?[24] To have\nleft the temple without any cieling at all, like that of the Olympian\nJupiter at Athens, had been an instance of more judgment[25].\n\n\u2019Tis but justice to claim an explication of what the author means by\n\u201cnegligences\u201d. He perhaps might be pleased to get a passport, even for\nthe faults of the ancients, by sheltering them under the authority of\nsuch titles; nay, to change them into beauties, as Alc\u00e6us did the spot\non the finger of his beloved boy. We too often view the blemishes of the\nancients, as a parent does those of his children:\n\n                      _Strabonem_\n    _Appellat p\u00e6tum pater, & pullum, male parvus_\n    _Si cui filius est._\n\n    Hor.\n\nIf these negligences were like those wished for in the Jalysus of\nProtogenes, where the chief figure was out-shone by a partridge, they\nmight be considered as the agreeable neglig\u00e9e of a fine lady; but\nthis is the question. Besides, had the author consulted his interest,\nhe never would have ventured citing the Diomedes of Dioscorides: but\nbeing too well acquainted with that gem, one of the most valued, most\nfinished monuments of Greek art; and being apprehensive of the prejudice\nthat might arise against the meaner productions of the ancients, on\ndiscovering many faults in one so eminent as Diomedes; he endeavoured to\nkeep matters from being too nearly examined, and to soften every fault\ninto negligence.\n\nHow! if by argument I shall attempt to shew that Dioscorides understood\nneither perspective, nor the most trivial rules of the motion of a human\nbody; nay, that he offended even against possibility? I\u2019ll venture to do\nit, though\n\n              _incedo per ignes_\n    _Suppositos cineri doloso._\n\n    Hor.\n\nAnd perhaps I am not the first discoverer of his faults: yet I do not\nremember to have seen any thing relative to them.\n\nThe Diomedes of Dioscorides is either a sitting, or a rising figure; for\nthe attitude is ambiguous. It is plain he is not sitting; and rising is\ninconsistent with his action.\n\nOur body endeavouring to raise itself from a seat, moves always\nmechanically towards its sought-for centre of gravity, drawing back the\nlegs, which were advanced in sitting[26]; instead of which the figure\nstretches out his right leg. Every erection begins with elevated heels,\nand in that moment all the weight of the body is supported only by the\ntoes, which was observed by Felix[27], in his Diomedes: but here all\nrests on the sole.\n\nNor can Diomedes, (if we suppose him to be a sitting figure, as he\ntouches with his left leg the bottom of his thigh) find, in raising\nhimself, the centre of his gravity, only by a retraction of his legs, and\nof course cannot rise in that posture. His left hand resting upon the\nbended leg, holds the palladion, whilst his right touches negligently the\npedestal with the point of a short sword; consequently he cannot rise,\nneither moving his legs in the natural and easy manner required in any\nerection, nor making use of his arms to deliver himself from that uneasy\nsituation.\n\nThere is at the same time a fault committed against the rules of\nperspective.\n\nThe foot of the left bended leg, touching the cornice of the pedestal,\nshews it over-reaching that part of the floor, on which the pedestal\nand the right foot are situated, consequently the line described by the\nhinder-foot is the fore on the gem, and _vice versa_.\n\nBut allowing even a possibility to that situation, it is contrary to the\nGreek character, which is always distinguished by the natural and easy.\nAttributes neither to be met with in the contortions of Diomedes, nor in\nan attitude, the impossibility of which every one must be sensible of, in\nendeavouring to put himself in it, without the help of former sitting.\n\nFelix, supposed to have lived after Dioscorides, though preserving the\nsame attitude, has endeavoured to make its violence more natural, by\nopposing to him the figure of Ulysses, who, as we are told, in order to\nbereave him of the honour of having seized the Palladion, offered to rob\nhim of it, but being discovered, was repulsed by Diomedes; which being\nhis supposed action on the gem, allows violence of attitude[28].\n\nDiomedes cannot be a sitting figure, for the Contour of his buttock and\nthigh is free, and not in the least compressed: the foot of the bent leg\nis visible, and the leg itself not bent enough.\n\nThe Diomedes represented by Mariette is absurd; the left leg resembling a\nclasped pocket-knife, and the foot being drawn up so high as to make it\nimpossible in nature that it should reach the pedestal[29].\n\nFaults of this kind cannot be called negligences, and would not be\nforgiven in any modern artist.\n\nDioscorides, \u2019tis true, in this renowned performance did but copy\nPolycletus, whose Doryphorus (as is commonly agreed) was the best rule\nof human proportions[30]. But, though a copyist, Dioscorides escaped\na fault which his master fell into. For the pedestal, over which the\nDiomedes of Polycletus leans, is contrary to the most common rules\nof perspective; its cornices, which should be parallel, forming two\ndifferent lines.\n\nI wonder at Perrault\u2019s omitting to make objections against the ancient\ngems.\n\nI mean not to do any thing derogatory to the author, when I trace some of\nhis particular observations to their source.\n\nThe food prescribed to the young wrestlers, in the remoter times of\nGreece, is mentioned by Pausanias[31]. But if the author alluded to the\npassage which I have in view, why does he talk in general of milk-food,\nwhen Pausanias particularly mentions soft cheese? Dromeus of Stymphilos,\nwe learn there, first introduced flesh meat.\n\nMy researches, concerning their mysterious art of changing blue eyes to\nblack ones, have not succeeded to my wish. I find it mentioned but once,\nand that only by the bye by Dioscorides[32]. The author, by clearing up\nthis art, might perhaps have thrown a greater lustre over his treatise,\nthan by producing his new method of statuary. He had it in his power to\nfix the eyes of the Newtons and Algarotti\u2019s, on a problem worth their\nattention, and to engage the fair sex, by a discovery so advantageous to\ntheir charms, especially in Germany, where, contrary to Greece, large,\nfine, blue eyes are more frequently met with than black ones.\n\nThere was a time when the fashion required to be green eyed:\n\n    _Et si bel oeil vert & riant & clair:_\n\n    Le Sire de Coucy, chans.\n\nBut I do not know whether art had any share in their colouring. And as to\nthe small-pox, Hippocrates might be quoted, if grammatical disquisitions\nsuited my purpose.\n\nHowever, I think, no effects of the small-pox on a face can be so\nmuch the reverse of beauty, as that defect which the Athenians were\nreproachfully charged with, viz. a buttock as pitiful as their face was\nperfect[33]. Indeed Nature, in so scantily supplying those parts, seemed\nto derogate as much from the Athenian beauty, as, by her lavishness, from\nthat of the Indian Enotocets, whose ears, we are told, were large enough\nto serve them for pillows.\n\nAs for opportunities to study the nudities, our times, I think, afford\nas advantageous ones as the Gymnasies of the ancients. \u2019Tis the fault of\nour artists to make no use of that[34] proposed to the Parisian artists,\nviz. to walk, during the summer season, along the Seine, in order to have\na full view of the naked parts, from the sixth to the fiftieth year.\n\n\u2019Tis perhaps to Michael Angelo\u2019s frequenting such opportunities that\nwe owe his celebrated Carton of the Pisan war[35], where the soldiers\nbathing in a river, at the sound of a trumpet leap out of the water, and\nmake haste to huddle on their cloaths.\n\nOne of the most offensive passages of the treatise is, no doubt, the\nunjust debasement of the modern sculptors beneath the ancients. These\nlatter times are possessed of several Glycons in muscular heroic figures,\nand, in tender youthful female bodies, of more than one Praxiteles.\nMichael Angelo, Algardi, and Sluter, whose genius embellished Berlin,\nproduced muscular bodies,\n\n    \u2014\u2014_Invicti membra Glyconis,_\n\n    Hor.\n\nin a style rivalling that of Glycon himself; and in delicacy the\nGreeks are perhaps even outdone by _Bernini_, _Fiammingo_, _Le Gros_,\n_Rauchm\u00fcller_, _Donner_.\n\nThe unskilfulness of the ancients, in shaping children, is agreed upon\nby our artists, who, I suppose, would for imitation choose a Cupid of\nFiammingo rather than of Praxiteles himself. The story of M. Angelo\u2019s\nplacing a Cupid of his own by the side of an antique one, in order to\ninform our times of the superiority of the ancient art, is of no weight\nhere: for no work of Michael Angelo can bring us so near perfection as\nNature herself.\n\nI think it no hyperbole to advance, that Fiammingo, like a new\nPrometheus, produced creatures which art had never seen before him. For,\nif from almost all the children on ancient gems[36] and reliefs[37], we\nmay form a conclusion of the art itself, it wanted the true expression\nof childhood, as looser forms, more milkiness, and unknit bones. Faults\nwhich, from the epoch of Raphael, all children laboured under, till the\nappearance of _Francis Quesnoy_, called Fiammingo, whose children having\nthe advantages of suitable innocence and nature, became models to the\nfollowing artists, as in youthful bodies Apollo and Antinous are: an\nhonour which _Algardi_, his contemporary, may be allowed to share.\n\nTheir models in clay are, by our artists, esteemed superior to all the\nantique marble children; and an artist of genius and talents assured me,\nthat during a stay of seven years at Vienna, he saw not one copy taken\nfrom an ancient Cupid in that academy.\n\nNeither do I know on what singular idea of beauty, the ancient artists\nfounded their custom, of hiding the foreheads of their children and\nyouths with hair. Thus a Cupid was represented by Praxiteles[38]; thus a\nPatroclus, in a picture mentioned by Philostratus[39]: and there is no\nstatue nor bust, no gem nor coin of Antinous, in which we do not find him\nthus dressed. Hence, perhaps, that gloom, that melancholy, with which all\nthe heads of this favourite of Hadrian are marked.\n\nIs not there in a free open brow more nobleness and sublimity? and does\nnot _Bernini_ seem to have been better acquainted with beauty than the\nancients, when he removed the over-shadowing locks from the forehead\nof young Lewis XIV. whose bust he was then executing? \u201cYour Majesty,\nsaid Bernini, is King, and may with confidence shew your brow to all\nthe world.\u201d From that time King and court dressed their hair \u00e0 la\nBernini[40].\n\nHis judgment of the bas-reliefs on the monument of Pope Alexander VI[41].\nleads us to some remarks on those of antiquity. \u201cThe skill in bas-relief,\nsaid he, consists in giving the air of relief to the flat: the figures of\nthat monument seem what they are indeed, not what they are not.\u201d\n\nThe chief end of bas-relief is to deck those places that want historical\nor allegorical ornaments, but which have neither cornices sufficiently\nspacious, nor proportions regular enough to allow groupes of entire\nstatues: and as the cornice itself is chiefly intended to shelter the\nsubordinate parts from being directly or indirectly hurt, no bas-relief\nmust exceed the projection thereof; which would not only make the cornice\nof no use, but endanger the figures themselves.\n\nThe figures of ancient bas-reliefs shoot commonly so much forward as to\nbecome almost round. But bas-relief being founded on fiction, can only\ncounterfeit reality; its perfection is well to imitate; and a natural\nmass is against its nature: if flat, it ought to appear projected, and\n_vice versa_. If this be true, it must of course be allowed that figures\nwholly round are inconsistent with it, and are to be considered as solid\nmarble pillars built upon the theatre, whose aim is mere illusion; for\nart, as is said of tragedy, wins truth from fiction, and that by truth.\nTo art we often owe charms superior to those of nature: a real garden and\nvegetating trees, on the stage, do not affect us so agreeably, as when\nwell expressed by the imitating art. A rose of _Van Huisum_, mallows of\n_Veerendal_, bewitch us more than all the darlings of the most skilful\ngardener: the most enticing landscape, nay, even the charms of the\nThessalian Tempe, would not, perhaps, affect us with that irresistible\ndelight which, flowing from _Dietrick_\u2019s pencil, enchants our senses and\nimagination.\n\nBy such instances we may safely form a judgment of the ancient\nbas-reliefs: the royal cabinet at Dresden is possessed of two eminent\nones: a Bacchanal on a tomb, and a sacrifice to Priapus on a large marble\nvase.\n\nThe bas-relief claims a particular kind of sculpture; a method that\nfew have succeeded in, of which _Matielli_ may be an instance. The\nEmperor Charles VI. having ordered some models to be prepared by the\nmost renowned artists, in bas-relief, intended for the spiral columns\nat the church of S. Charles Borrom\u00e6o; _Matielli_, already famous, was\nprincipally thought of; but however refused the honour of so considerable\na work, on account of the enormous bulk of his model, which requiring\ntoo great cavities, would have diminished the mass of the stone, and of\ncourse weakened the pillars. _Mader_ was the artist, whose models were\nuniversally applauded, and who by his admirable execution proved that he\ndeserved that preference. These bas-reliefs represent the story of the\npatron of this church.\n\nIt is in general to be observed, first, that this kind of sculpture\nadmits not indifferently of every attitude and action; as for instance,\nof too strong projections of the legs. Secondly, That, besides disposing\nof the several modelled figures in well-ranged groupes, the diameter of\nevery one ought to be applied to the bas-relief itself, by a lessened\nscale: as for instance, the diameter of a figure in the model being one\nfoot, the profile of the same, according to its size, will be three\ninches, or less: the rounder a figure of that diameter, the greater the\nskill. Commonly the relief wants perspective, and thence arise most of\nits faults.\n\nThough I proposed to make only a few remarks on the ancient bas-relief,\nI find myself, like a certain ancient Rhetor, almost under a necessity\nof being new-tuned. I have strayed beyond my limits; though at the same\ntime I remembered that there is a law among commentators, to content\nthemselves with bare remarks on the contents of a treatise: and also\nsensible that I am writing a letter, not a book, I consider that I may\ndraw some instructions for my own use,\n\n    \u2014\u2014_ut vineta egomet c\u00e6dam mea,_\n\n    Hor.\n\nfrom some peoples impetuosity against the author; who, because they are\nhired for it, seem to think that writing is confined to them alone.\n\nThe Romans, though they worshipped the deity Terminus (the guardian God\nof limits and borders in general; and, if it please these gentlemen, of\nthe limits in arts and sciences too), allowed nevertheless an universal\nunrestrained criticism: and the decisions of some Greeks and Romans,\nin matters of an art, which they did not practise, seem nevertheless\nauthentick to our artists.\n\nNor can I find, that the keeper of the temple of peace at Rome, though\npossessed of the register of the pictures there, pretended to monopolize\nremarks and criticisms upon them; Pliny having described most of them.\n\n    _Publica materies privati juris sit_\u2014\n\n    Hor.\n\n\u2019Tis to be wished, that, roused by a Pamphilus and an Apelles, artists\nwould take up the pen themselves, in order to discover the mysteries of\nthe art to those that know how to use them,\n\n    _Ma di costor\u2019, che \u00e0 lavorar s\u2019accingono,_\n    _Quattro quinti, per Dio, non sanno leggere._\n\n    Salvator Rosa, Sat. III.\n\nTwo or three of these are to be commended; the rest contented themselves\nwith giving some historical accounts of the fraternity. But what could\nappear more auspicious to the improvement of the art, even by the\nremotest posterity, than the work attempted by the united forces of the\ncelebrated Pietro da Cortona[42] and Padre Ottonelli? Nevertheless this\nsame treatise, except only a few historical remarks, and these too to be\nmet with in an hundred books, seems good for nothing, but\n\n    _Ne scombris tunic\u00e6 desint, piperique cuculli._\n\n    Sectan. Sat.\n\nHow trivial, how mean are the great _Poussin_\u2019s reflexions on painting,\npublished by Bellori, and annexed to his life of that artist[43]?\n\nAnother digression!\u2014let me now again resume the character of your\nAristarchus.\n\nYou are bold enough to attack the authority of _Bernini_, and to\nchallenge a man, the bare mention of whose name would do honour to any\ntreatise. It was _Bernini_, you ought to recollect, Sir, who at the\nsame age in which Michael Angelo performed his _Studiolo_[44], viz. in\nhis eighteenth year, produced his Daphne, as a convincing instance of\nhis intimacy with the ancients, at an age in which perhaps the genius of\nRaphael was yet labouring under darkness and ignorance!\n\n_Bernini_ was one of those favourites of nature, who produce at the same\ntime vernal blossoms and autumnal fruits; and I think it by no means\nprobable, that his studying nature in riper years misled either him\nor his disciples. The smoothness of his flesh was the result of that\nstudy, and imparted to the marble the highest possible degree of life\nand beauty. Indeed \u2019tis nature which endows art with life, and \u201cvivifies\nforms,\u201d as Socrates says[45], and Clito the sculptor allows. The great\nLysippus, when asked which of his ancestors he had chosen for his\nmaster, replied, \u201cNone; but nature alone.\u201d It is not to be denied, that\nthe too close imitation of antiquity is very often apt to lead us to a\ncertain barrenness, unknown to those who imitate nature: various herself,\nnature teaches variety, and no votary of her\u2019s can be charged with a\nsameness: whereas Guido, Le Brun, and some other votaries of antiquity,\nrepeated the same face in many of their works. A certain ideal beauty was\nbecome so familiar to them, as to slide into their figures even against\ntheir will.\n\nBut as for such an imitation of nature, as is quite regardless of\nantiquity, I am entirely of the author\u2019s opinion; though I should have\nchosen other artists as instances of following nature in painting.\n\n_Jordans_ certainly has not met with the regard due to his merit; let\nme appeal to an authority universally allowed. \u201cThere is, says Mr.\nd\u2019Argenville, more expression and truth in Jordans, than even in Rubens.\n\n\u201cTruth is the basis and origin of perfection and beauty; nothing, of any\nkind whatever, can be beautiful or perfect, without being truly what it\nought to be, without having all it ought to have.\u201d\n\nThe solidity of this judgment presupposed, _Jordans_, according to\nRochefoucault\u2019s maxims, ought rather to be ranked among the greatest\noriginals, than among the mimicks of common nature, where _Rembrandt_\nmay fill up his place, as _Raoux_ or _Vatteau_ that of _Stella_; though\nall these painters do nothing but what Euripides did before them; they\ndraw man _ad vivum_. There are no trifles, no meannesses in the art, and\nif we recollect of what use the _Caricatura_ was to Bernini, we should\nbe cautious how we pass judgment even on the Dutch forms. That great\ngenius, they say[46], owed to this monster of the art, a distinction for\nwhich he was so eminent, the \u201cFranchezza del Tocco.\u201d When I reflect on\nthis, I am forced to alter my former opinion of the _Caricatura_, so far\nas to believe that no artist ever acquired a perfection therein without\ngaining a farther improvement in the art itself. \u201cIt is, says the author,\na peculiar distinction of the ancients to have gone beyond nature:\u201d our\nartists do the same in their _Caricaturas_: but of what avail to them are\nthe voluminous works they have published on that branch of the art?\n\nThe author lays it down, in the peremptory style of a legislator, that\n\u201cPrecision of Contour can only be learned from the Greeks:\u201d but our\nacademies unanimously agree, that the ancients deviate from a strict\nContour in the clavicles, arms, knees, &c. over which, in spite of\napophyses and bones, they drew their skin as smooth as over mere flesh;\nwhereas our academies teach to draw the bony and cartilaginous parts,\nmore angularly, but the fat and fleshy ones more smooth, and carefully to\navoid falling into the ancient style. Pray, Sir, can there be any error\nin the advices of academies _in corpore_?\n\n_Parrhasius_ himself, the father of Contour, was not, by Pliny\u2019s\naccount[47], master enough to hit the line by which completeness is\ndistinguished from superfluity: shunning corpulency he fell into\nleanness: and _Zeuxis_\u2019s Contour was perhaps like that of Rubens, if it\nbe true that, to augment the majesty of his figures, he drew with more\ncompleteness. His female figures he drew like those of Homer[48], of\nrobust limbs: and does not even the tenderest of poets, Theocritus, draw\nhis Helen as fleshy and tall[49] as the Venus of Raphael in the assembly\nof the gods in the little Farnese? Rubens then, for painting like Homer\nand Theocritus, needs no apology.\n\nThe character of Raphael, in the treatise, is drawn with truth and\nexactness: but well may we ask the author, as Antalcidas the Spartan\nasked a sophist, ready to burst forth in a panegyrick on Hercules, \u201cWho\nblames him?\u201d The beauties however of the Raphael at Dresden, especially\nthe pretended ones of the Jesus, are still warmly disputed.\n\n    _What you admire, we laugh at._\n\nWhy did not he rather display his patriotism against those Italian\nconnoisseurs, whose squeamish stomachs rise against every Flemish\nproduction?\n\n    _Turpis Romano Belgicus ore color._\n\n    Propert. L. II. Eleg. 8.\n\nAnd indeed are not colours so essential, that without them no picture\ncan aspire to universal applause? Do not their bewitching charms cover\nthe most grievous faults? They are the harmonious melody of painting;\nwhatever is offensive vanishes by their splendor, and souls animated with\ntheir beauties are absorbed in beholding, as the readers of Homer are\nby his flowing harmony, so as to find no faults. These, joined to that\nimportant science of Chiaro-Oscuro, are the characteristicks of Flemish\npainting.\n\nAgreeably to affect our eye is the first thing in a picture[50], which\nto obtain, obvious charms are wanted; not such as spring only from\nreflection. Colouring moreover belongs peculiarly to pictures; whereas\ndesign ought to be in every draught, print, &c. and indeed seems easier\nto be attained than colouring.\n\nThe best colourists, according to a celebrated writer[51], have always\ncome _after_ the inventors and contourists; we all know the vain attempts\nof the famous Poussin. In short, all those\n\n    _Qui rem Romanam Latiumque augescere student,_\n\n    Ennius.\n\nmust here acknowledge the superiority of the Flemish art; the painter\nbeing really but nature\u2019s mimick, is the more perfect the better he\nmimicks her.\n\n    _Ast heic, quem nunc tu tam turpiter increpuisti,_\n\n    Ennius.\n\nthe delicate _Van der Werf_, whose performances, worth their weight\nin gold, are the ornaments of royal cabinets only, has made nature\ninimitable to every Italian pencil; he allures the connoisseur\u2019s eye\nas well as that of the clown; and, as an English poet says, \u201cthat no\npleasing poet ever wrote ill,\u201d surely the Flemish painter obtained that\napplause which was denied to Poussin.\n\nI should be glad to see many pictures as happily fancied, as well\ncomposed, as enticingly painted as some of _Gherard Lairesse_: let me\nappeal to every unprepossessed artist at Paris, acquainted with the\n_Stratonice_, the most eminent, and no doubt the first ranked picture in\nthe cabinet of Mr. de la Boixieres[52].\n\nThe subject is of no trivial choice: King Seleucus I.[53] resigned\nhis wife Stratonice, a daughter of Demetrius Poliorcetes, to his son\nAntiochus, whom a violent passion for his mother-in-law had thrown into\na dangerous sickness: after many unsuccessful inquiries, the physician\nErasistratus discovered the true cause, and found that the only means of\nrestoring the prince\u2019s health, was, the condescension of the father to\nthe love of his son: the King resigned his Queen, and at the same time\ndeclared Antiochus King of the East.\n\nStratonice, the chief person, is the noblest figure, a figure worthy\nRaphael himself. The charming Queen,\n\n    _Colle sob id\u00e6o vincere digna deas,_\n\n    Ovid. Art.\n\nwith slow and hesitating steps, approaches the bed of her new lover; but\nstill with the countenance of a mother, or rather of a sacred vestal.\nIn the profile of her face you may read shame mingled with gentle\nresignation to the will of her lord. She has the softness of her sex,\nthe majesty of a queen, an awful submission to the sacred ceremony, and\nall the sageness required in so extraordinary and delicate a situation.\nDressed with a masterly skill, the artist, from the colour of her\ncloaths, may learn how to paint the purple of the ancients; for it is not\ngenerally known that it resembled fadeing, ruddy, vine-leaves[54].\n\nBehind her stands the King, dressed in a darker habit, in order to give\nthe more relief to the Queen, to spare confusion to her, shame to the\nPrince, and not to interrupt his joy. Expectation and acquiescence are\nblended in his face, which is taken from the profile of his best coins.\n\nThe Prince, a beautiful half-naked youth, sitting in his bed, has some\nresemblance of his father; his pale face bears witness of the fever,\nthat lately had raged in his veins; but fancy sees returning health, not\nshame, in that soft-rising ruddiness diffused over his cheeks.\n\nThe physician and priest Erasistratus, venerable like the Calchas of\nHomer, standing before the bed, is the only speaker, authorised by the\nKing, whose will he declares to the Prince; and whilst, with one hand, he\nleads the Queen to the embraces of her lover, with the other he presents\nhim with the diadem. Joy and astonishment flash from the Prince\u2019s face\non the approach of his Queen\n\n    \u2014\u2014_darting all the soul in missive love_:\n\nthough nobly restrained by reverence, he bends his head, and seems to\ncomprise his happiness in a single thought.\n\nThe characters indeed are distributed with so much ingenuity, that they\nseem to give a lustre and energy to each other.\n\nThe largest share of light is displayed on Stratonice: she claims our\nfirst regard. The priest, though in a weaker light, is raised by his\ngesture: he is the speaker, and around him reign solemn stillness and\nattention.\n\nThe Prince, the second person, has a larger share of light; and though\nthe artist, led by his skill, chose rather to make a beautiful Queen the\nchief support of his groupe than a sick Prince, He nevertheless maintains\nhis due rank, and becomes the most eminent person of the whole, by his\nexpression. His face contains the greatest secrets of the art,\n\n    _Quales nequeo monstrare & sentio tantum._\n\n    Juvenal. Sat. VII.\n\nEven those motions of the soul, which otherwise seem opposite to each\nother, mingle here with peaceful harmony; a timid red spreading over his\nsickly face, announces health, like the faint glimmerings of the morn,\nwhich, though veiled by night, announce the day, and even a bright one.\n\nThe genius and taste of the artist shines forth in every part of his\nwork: even the vases are copied from the best antique ones; the table\nbefore the bed, is, like Homer\u2019s, of ivory.\n\nThe distances behind the figures represent a magnificent Greek building,\nwhose decorations seem allegorical. The roof of a portal is supported\nby Cariatides embracing each other, as images of the tender friendship\nbetween father and son, and alluding, at the same time, to the nuptial\nceremony.\n\nThough faithful to history, the painter was nevertheless a poet: in\norder to represent some circumstances, he filled even the furniture with\nsentiments. The Sphinxes by the Prince\u2019s bed allude to his problematic\nsickness, the enquiries of Erasistratus, and his sagacity in discovering\nits true cause.\n\nI have been told that some young Italian artists, when considering this\npicture, and perceiving the Prince\u2019s arm perhaps a trifle too big, went\noff without enquiring into the subject itself. Should even Minerva\nherself, as she once did to Diomedes, attempt to deliver some people from\nthe mist they labour under, by heaven! the attempt were vain!\n\n                \u2014\u2014_pauci dignoscere possunt_\n    _Vera bona, atque illis multum diversa, remota_\n    _Erroris nebula._\n\n    Juv. X.\n\nI have run into this long digression, in order to throw some light on one\nof the first productions of the art, which is nevertheless but little\nknown.\n\nThe idea of noble simplicity and sedate grandeur in Raphael\u2019s figures,\nmight rather, as two eminent authors express it[55], be called \u201cstill\nlife.\u201d It is indeed the standard of the Greek art: however, indiscreetly\ncommended to young artists, it might beget as dangerous consequences, as\nprecepts of energetick conciseness in the style; the direct method to\nmake it barren and unpleasing.\n\n\u201cIn youths, says Cicero[56], there must be some superfluity, something\nto be taken off: prematurity spoils the juices, and it is easier to lop\nthe young rank branches of a vine, than to restore its vigour to a worn\nout trunk.\u201d Not to mention, that figures wanting gesture would, by the\nbulk of mankind, be received as a speech before the Areopagites, where,\nby a severe law, the speaker was forbid to raise any passions, though\never so gentle[57]: nay, pictures of this kind would be so many portraits\nof young Spartans, who, with hands hid under their coats, and down-cast\neyes, stalk forth in silent solemnity[58].\n\nNeither am I quite of the author\u2019s opinion with regard to allegory; the\napplying of which would too frequently do in painting, what was done in\ngeometry by introducing algebra: the one would soon be as difficult as\nthe other, and painting would degenerate into Hieroglyphicks.\n\nThe author attempts, in vain, to persuade us, that the majority of the\nGreeks thought as the Egyptians. There was no more learning in the\npainting of the platfond of the temple of Juno at Samos, than in that\nof the Farnese gallery. It represented the love-intrigues of Jupiter\nand Juno[59]: and, in the front of a temple of Ceres at Eleusis, there\nwas nothing but representations of a ceremony at the rites of that\ngoddess[60].\n\nHow to represent abstract ideas I do not yet distinctly conceive.\nThere may be the same difficulties which attend the endeavours of\nrepresenting to the senses a mathematical point\u2014perhaps nothing less than\nimpossibility; and Theodoretus[61] has some reason in confining painting\nto the senses. For those Hieroglyphicks which hint at abstract ideas,\nin such a manner as to express, for instance[62], _youth_ by the number\nXVI; _impossibility_ by two feet standing on water: those, I say, are\nmonograms, not images: to indulge them in painting is fostering chim\u00e6ras,\nis adding to Chinese pictures Chinese explications.\n\nAn adversary of allegory believes that Parrhasius, without any help from\nit, could represent the contradictions in the character of the Athenians;\nthat he did it perhaps in several pictures. Supposing which\n\n    _Et sapit, & mecum facit, & Jove judicat \u00e6quo._\n\n    Hor.\n\nThe sentence of death pronounced against the leaders of the Athenian\nnavy, after their victory over the Spartans near the Arginuses, afforded\nthe artist a very sensible and rich image, to represent the Athenians, at\nthe same time, merciful and cruel.\n\nThe famous Theramenes, one of the leaders, accused his fellow-chieftains\nof having neglected to gather and bury the bodies of their slain\ncountrymen: a charge sufficient to rouse the rage of the mob against\nthe victors; only six of whom had returned to Athens, the rest having\ndeclined the storm.\n\nTheramenes harangued the people in the most pathetick manner; intermixing\nhis speech with frequent pauses, in order to give vent to the loud\nplaints of those who, in the battle, had lost their parents or relations.\nHe, at the same time, produced a man, who protested he had heard the last\nwords of the drowned, imprecating the publick revenge on their leaders.\nIn vain did Socrates, then a member of the council, with a few others,\noppose the accusation: the brave chieftains, instead of the honours\nthey hoped for, were condemned to die. One of them was the only son of\n_Pericles_ and _Aspasia_.\n\nWas it not in the power of Parrhasius, who was then alive, to enlarge the\nmeaning of his picture beyond the extent of bare history, only by drawing\nthe true characters of the authors of this scene, without the least help\nfrom allegory? It would have been in his power, had he lived in our days.\n\nYour pretensions concerning allegory seem indeed as reasonable an\nimposition upon the painter, as that of Columella upon his farmer;\nwho wished to find him a philosopher like Democritus, Pythagoras, or\nEudoxus[63].\n\nNo better success, in my opinion, is to be expected from applying\nallegory to decorations: the author would, at least, meet with as many\ndifficulties as Virgil, when hammering on the names of a Vibius Caudex,\nTanaquil Lucumo, or Decius Mus; to fit them for his Hexameter.\n\nCustom has given its sanction to the use of shells in decorations: and\nis not there as much nature in them as in the Corinthian capital? You\nknow its origin: a basket set upon the tomb of a young Corinthian girl,\nfilled with some of her play-things, and covered with a large brick,\nbeing overgrown with the creeping branches of an acanthus, which had\ntaken root under it, was the first occasion of forming that capital.\n_Callimachus_[64] the sculptor, surprized at the elegant simplicity of\nthat composition, took thence a hint for enriching architecture with a\nnew order.\n\nThus this capital, destined to support all the entablature of the column,\nis but a basket of flowers; something so apparently inconsistent with the\nideas of architecture, that there was no use made of it in the time of\nPericles: for Pocock[65] thinks it strange that the temple of Minerva at\nAthens had Doric, instead of Corinthian pillars. But time soon changed\nthis seeming oddity into nature; the basket lost, by custom, all its\nformer offensiveness, and\n\n    _Quod fuerat vitium desinit esse mora._\n\n    Ovid. Art.\n\nWe acknowledge no Egyptian law to forbid arbitrary ornaments; and so\nfond have the artists of all ages been, both of the growth and form of\nshells, as to change even the chariot of Venus into an enormous one. The\nancile, that Palladium of the Romans, was scooped into the form of a\nshell[66]: we find them on antique lamps[67]. Nay, nature herself seems\nto have produced their immense variety, and marvellous sinuations, for\nthe benefit of the art.\n\nI have no mind to plead the bad cause of our unskilful decorators: only\nlet me adduce the arguments used by a whole tribe, (if the artists will\nforgive the term), in order to prove the reasonableness of their art.\n\nThe painters and sculptors of Paris, endeavouring to deprive the\ndecorators of the title of artists, by alledging that they employed\nneither their own intellectual faculties, nor those of the connoisseurs,\nupon works not produced by nature, but rather the offsprings of\ncapricious art; the others are said to have defended themselves in the\nfollowing manner: \u201cWe are the followers of nature: like the bark of a\ntree, variously carved, our decorations grow into various forms: then art\njoins sportive nature, and corrects her: we do what the ancients did:\nconsult their decorations.\u201d\n\nVariety is the great and only rule to which decorators submit. Perceiving\nthat there is no perfect resemblance between two things in nature,\nthey likewise forsake it in their decorations; and careless of anxious\ntwining, leave it to the parts themselves to find their like, as the\natoms of Epicurus did. This liberty we owe to the very nation, which,\nafter having nobly exceeded all the narrow bounds of social formalities,\nbestows so much pains upon communicating her improvements to her\nneighbours. This style in decorations got the epithet of _Barroque_\ntaste, derived from a word signifying pearls and teeth of unequal\nsize[68].\n\nShells have at least as good a claim for being admitted among our\ndecorations, as the heads of sheep and oxen. You know that the ancients\nplaced those heads, stript of the skin, on the frizes, especially of the\nDoric order, between the Triglyphs, or on the Metopes. We even meet with\nthem on the Corinthian frise of an old temple of Vesta, at Tivoli[69];\non tombs, as on one of the Metellus-family near Rome, and another of\nMunatius Plancus near Gaeta[70]; on vases, as on a pair in the royal\ncabinet at Dresden. Some modern artists, finding them perhaps unbecoming,\nchanged them into thunderbolts, like Vignola, or to roses, like Palladio\nand Scamozzi[71].\n\nWe conclude from all this, that learning never had, nor indeed ought\nto have, any share in an art so nearly related to what we call _Lusus\nNatur\u00e6_.\n\nThus the ancients thought: for, pray, what could be meant by a lizard on\nMentor\u2019s cup?[72] The\n\n    _Picti squallentia terga lacerti_\n\n    Virg. G. IV.\n\nmake, to be sure, a lovely image amidst the flowers of a Rachel Ruysch,\nbut a very poor figure on a cup. Of what mysterious meaning are birds\npicking grapes from vines, on an urn?[73] Images, perhaps, as void of\nsense, and as arbitrary, as the fable of Ganymede embroidered on the\nmantle, which \u00c6neas presented to Cloanthus, as a reward of his victory in\nthe naval games[74].\n\nTo conclude: is there any thing contradictory between trophies and\nthe hunting-house of a Prince? Surely the author, though so zealous a\nchampion for the Greek taste, cannot pretend to propose to us that of\nKing Philip and the Macedonians, who, by the account of Pausanias[75],\ndid not erect their own trophies. Diana perhaps, amidst her nymphs and\nhunting-equipages,\n\n    _Qualis in Eurot\u00e6 ripis, aut per juga Cynthi,_\n    _Exercet Diana choros, quam mille secut\u00e6,_\n    _Hinc atque hinc glomerantur, Oreades_\u2014\n\n    Virg.\n\nmight better suit the place; but we know that the antient Romans hung up\nthe arms of their defeated enemies over the out-sides of their doors,\nto be everlasting monitors of bravery to every succeeding owner of the\nhouse. Can trophies, having the same design, ever be misplaced on any\nbuilding of the Great?\n\nI wish for a speedy answer to this letter. You cannot be angry at seeing\nit published. The tribe of authors now imitate the conduct of the stage,\nwhere the lover, with his soliloquy, entertains the pit. For the same\nreason I shall receive, with all my heart, an answer,\n\n    _Quam legeret tereretque viritim publicus usus:_\n\n    Hor.\n\nfor\n\n    _Hanc veniam petimusque damusque vicissim._\n\n    Id.\n\n\n\n\n    AN\n    ACCOUNT\n    OF A\n    MUMMY,\n    IN\n    The Royal Cabinet of Antiquities at DRESDEN.\n\n\nAmong the Egyptian Mummies of the royal cabinet, there are two preserved\nperfectly entire, and not in the least damaged, viz. the bodies of a\nman and woman. The former, among all those that were brought into, and\npublickly known in Europe, is perhaps the only one of its kind; on\naccount of an inscription thereon, which none of those who have written\non Mummies, except Della Valle alone, discovered on those bodies; and\nKircher, among all the drawings of Mummies communicated to him, and\npublished in his Oedipus, has but one, (the same which Della Valle had\nbeen possessed of,) with an inscription; though his wooden cut[76] is as\nfaulty as all the copies made afterwards[77]. On that Mummy there are\nthese letters \u0395\u03a5\u2720\u03a5\u03a7\u0399.\n\nThis same inscription is on the royal Mummy, of which I propose to give a\nbrief account, and in examining which I have employed all my attention,\nthat I might be certain of its being genuine, and not drawn by a modern\nhand from the inscription of Della Valle: for \u2019tis well known, that those\nbodies frequently pass through the hands of Jews. But the letters are\nevidently drawn with the same blackish colour with which the face, hands,\nand feet are stained. The first letter on our Mummy has the form of a\nlarge Greek \u03f5, expressed by Della Valle with an E angular, the other not\nbeing usual in printing-presses.\n\nAll the four Mummies of the royal cabinet being bought at Rome, I\nproposed to examine whether the Mummy with the inscription, was that\nwhich Della Valle was possessed of, and found that both the entire royal\nMummies were exact resemblances of those described by him.\n\nBoth, besides the linnen bandages, of a Barracan-texture, rolled\ninnumerable times around the bodies, are wrapt up in several (and,\naccording to an observation made in England[78], in three) kinds of\ncoarser linnen; which, by particular bandages of the girdle-kind, is\nfastened in such a manner as to involve even the smallest prominence of\nthe face. The first covering is a nice bit of linnen, slightly tinged\nwith a certain ground, much gilt, decked with various figures, and with\na painted one of the deceased.\n\nOn the Mummy marked with the inscription, this figure represents a\nman, who died in the flower of life, with a thin curled beard, not\nas represented by Kircher, like an old man with a long pointed one.\nThe colour of the face and hands is brown: the head encircled with\ngilt diadems, marked with the sockets of jewels. From the gold chain,\npainted around the neck, a sort of medal hangs down, marked with various\ncharacters, crescents, &c. and this over-reaches the neck of a bird, that\nof a hawk perhaps, as on the breasts of other Mummies[79]. In the right\nhand of the figure is a dish filled with a red stuff, which being like\nthat used by the sacrificers[80], the deceased may be supposed to have\nbeen a priest. The first and last finger of the left hand have rings; and\nin the hand itself there is something round, of a dark-brown colour;\nwhich, as Della Valle pretends, is a well-known fruit. The feet and legs\nare bare, with sandals; the strings of which appearing between the great\ntoes, are, with a slip, fastened on the foot itself.\n\nThe inscription, above-mentioned, is beneath the breast.\n\nThe second Mummy is the still more refined figure of a young woman.\nAmong a great many medals, seemingly gilt, and other figures, there are\ncertain birds, and quadrupeds something analogous to lions; and towards\nthe extremities of the body there is an ox, perhaps an apis: Down from\none of the neck-chains hangs a gilt image of the sun. She has ear-rings,\nand double bracelets on both her arms: rings on each hand, and on every\nfinger of the left one, but two on the first: whereas the right hand has\nbut two: with this hand she holds, like Isis, a small gilt vessel, of the\nGreek Spondeion-kind, which was a symbol of the fertility of the Nile,\nwhen held by the goddess[81]. In the left hand there is a sort of fruit,\nlike an ear of corn, of a greenish cast. The leaden seals, mentioned by\nDella Valle, still remain on the first Mummy.\n\nCompare this description with that in his travels[82], and you\u2019ll find\nthe Mummies of the royal cabinet to be the same with those, which were\ntaken out of a deep well or cave, covered with sand, and sold to this\ncelebrated traveller by an Egyptian; and I believe they were purchased\nfrom his heirs at Rome, though in the manuscript catalogue, joined to\nthat cabinet of antiquities, there is not the least hint of any such\npurchase.\n\nI have no design to attempt an explication of the ornaments and figures;\nsome remarks of that kind having already been made by Della Valle. The\nfollowing observations concern only the inscription.\n\nThe Egyptians, we know, employed a double character in expressing\nthemselves[83], the _sacred_ and the _vulgar_: the first was what is\ncalled hieroglyphick; the other contained the characters of their\nnational language, and this is commonly said to be lost. All we know is\nconfined to the twenty-five letters of their alphabet.[84] Della Valle\nseems inclined to give an instance of the contrary, in that inscription;\nwhich Kircher, pushing his conjectures still farther, endeavours to lay\ndown as a foundation for a new scheme of his; and to support it by two\nother remains of the same kind. For, he attempts to prove[85], that\nthe dialect was the only difference between the old Egyptian and Greek\ntongue. According to his talent of finding what no body looks for, he\nmakes free with some ancient historical accounts; upon which he obtrudes\na fictitious sense, in order to make them tally with his scheme.\n\nHerodotus, according to him, tells us, that King Psammetichus desired\nsome Greeks, who were perfect masters of their language, to go over to\nEgypt, in order to instruct his people in the purity of the tongue. Hence\nhe concludes, that there was but one language in both countries. But that\nGreek historian[86] gives an account entirely opposite: he tells us, that\nPsammetichus, having received some services from the Carians and Ionians,\npermitted them to settle in Egypt, for the instruction of youth in the\nGreek language, in order to bring up interpreters.\n\nThere is no solidity in the rest of the Kircherian arguments; such as\nthose deduced from the frequent voyages of the Greek sages into Egypt,\nand the mutual commerce between the two nations; which have not even\nthe strength of conjectures. For the very skill of Democritus, in the\nsacred tongue of the Babylonians and Egyptians[87], proves only, that the\ntravelling sages learned the languages of the nations they conversed with.\n\nNor does the testimony of Diodorus, that Attica was originally an\nEgyptian colony[88], seem to be here of any weight.\n\nThe inscription of the Mummy might indeed admit of Kircherian, or such\nlike conjectures, were the Mummy itself of the antiquity pretended by\nKircher. Cambyses, the conqueror of Egypt, partly exiled, and partly\nkilled the priests; from which fact Kircher confidently deduces as\nconsequences, the total abolition of the sacred rites, and from that the\nceasing to embalm bodies. He again appeals to a passage of Herodotus[89],\nwhich, upon his word alone, others have as confidently quoted. Nay, a\ncertain pedant went so far as to pretend, that the Egyptian custom of\npainting their dead, upon the varnished linnen of the Mummies, ceased\nwith the epoch of Cyrus[90].\n\nBut Herodotus says not a word, either of the total abolition of the\nsacred rites, or of the abolition of the custom of preserving the\ndead from putrefaction, after the time of Cambyses; nor does Diodorus\nSiculus give any such hint: we may, on the contrary, from his account of\nthe funeral rites of the Egyptians, rather conclude, that this custom\nprevailed even in his time; that is to say, when Egypt was changed into a\nRoman province.\n\nHence it cannot be demonstrated that our Mummy was embalmed before the\nPersian conquest.\u2014But supposing it to be of that date, is it a necessary\nconsequence that a body preserved in the Egyptian manner, or even taken\ncare of by their priests, should be marked with Egyptian words?\n\nPerhaps it is the body of some naturalised Ionian or Carian. We know that\nPythagoras entered into the Egyptian confession; nay, even consented to\nbe circumcised[91], in order to shorten his way to the mysteries of their\npriests. The Carians themselves observed the sacred solemnities of Isis,\nand even went so far in their superstition, as to mangle their faces\nduring the sacrifices offered to that deity[92].\n\nChange the letter \u03b9, in the inscription, into the diphthong \u03b5\u03b9, and you\nhave a Greek word: such negligences are often to be met with in Greek\nmarbles[93], and still more in Greek manuscripts; and with the same\ntermination it is to be found on a gem, and signifies, \u201cFAREWELL\u201d[94],\nwhich was the usual ejaculation addressed by the living to the deceased;\nthe same we meet with on ancient epitaphs[95]; public decrees[96]; and\nof letters it was the final conclusion[97].\n\nThere is on an ancient epitaph the word \u0395\u03a5\u03a8\u03a5\u03a7\u0399[98]; the form of the \u03a8 on\nancient stones and manuscripts is exactly the same[99] with the third\nletter of \u0395\u03a5\u2720\u03a5\u03a7\u0399, which was perhaps confounded with it.\n\nBut supposing the Mummy to be of later times, the adoption of a Greek\nword becomes yet easier. The round form of the \u03f5 might be something\nsuspicious, with regard to its pretended antiquity; that form being never\nfound on the gems or coins before Augustus[100]. But this suspicion\nbecomes of no weight, by supposing that the Egyptians continued their\nembalming, even after the time of that Emperor.\n\nHowever, the word cannot be an Egyptian one, being inconsistent with the\nremains of that ancient tongue in the modern Coptick, as well as with\ntheir manner of writing; which was from the right to the left, as the\nEtrurians did[101]; whereas the word in question (like some Egyptian\ncharacters[102],) is traced from the left to the right. As for the\ninscription discovered by Maillet[103], no interpreter has yet been\nfound. The Grecians, on the contrary, wrote in the occidental manner,\nfor six hundred years before the christian \u00e6ra, witness the Sig\u00e6an\ninscription, which is said to be of that date[104].\n\nWhat has been said relates also to an inscription upon a piece of\nstone[105], with Egyptian figures, communicated to Kircher by Carolo\nVintimiglia, a Palerman patrician. The letters \u0399\u03a4\u0399\u03a8\u0399\u03a7\u0399 are two words,\nand signify, \u201cLet the soul come.\u201d This stone has met with the same fate\nas the gem engraved with the head of Ptolom\u00e6us Philopator: for here an\nEgyptian has joined two random figures, and there the inscription may be\nof a Greek hand. The litterati know what little change it wants to be\northographical.\n\n\n\n\n    AN\n    ANSWER\n    TO THE FOREGOING\n    LETTER,\n    AND\n    A further EXPLICATION of the SUBJECT.\n\n\nI could not presume that so small a treatise as mine would be thought\nof consequence enough to be brought to a publick trial. As it was\nwritten only for a few _connoisseurs_, it seemed superfluous to give it\na learned air, by multiplying quotations. Artists want but hints: their\ntask, according to an ancient Rhetor, is \u201cto perform, not to peruse;\u201d\nconsequently every author, who writes for them, ought to be brief. Being\nbesides convinced, that the beauties of the art are founded rather on a\nquick sense, and refined taste, than on profound meditation, I cannot\nhelp thinking that the principle of Neoptolemus[106], \u201cto philosophize\nonly with the few,\u201d ought to be the chief consideration in every treatise\nof this kind.\n\nSeveral passages of my Essay are susceptible of explications, and,\nhaving been publickly tried by an anonymous author, should be explained\nand defended at the same time, if my circumstances would permit me to\nenlarge[107]. As to his other remarks, the author, I hope, will guess at\nmy answer, without my giving one explicitly.\u2014Indeed they do not require\nany.\n\nI am not in the least moved by the clamours concerning those pieces of\n_Corregio_, which, by undoubted accounts, were not only brought to\n_Sweden_[108], but even hung up in the stables at _Stockholm_. Reasoning\nis of no use here: arguments of this kind admit of no other evidence but\nthat of _\u00c6milius Scaurus_ against _Valerius_ of _Sucro_: \u201cHe denies; I\naffirm: Romans! \u2019tis yours to judge.\u201d\n\nAnd why should there be any thing more derogatory to the honour of the\nSwedes, in my repeating Count _Tessin_\u2019s relation, than in his giving\nit? Perhaps, because the learned author of the circumstantial life of\nQueen _Christina_ omits her indiscreet generosity towards _Bourdon_,\nand that bad treatment which the pictures of _Corregio_ met with? or\nwas _H\u00e4rleman_[109] himself charged with indiscretion or malice, on his\nrelating that, at _Linc\u00f6ping_, he found a college, and seven professors,\nbut not one physician or artificer?\n\nIt was my design to explain myself more particularly, concerning the\nnegligences of the Greeks, had I been allowed time. The Greeks, as their\ncriticism on the partridge of Protogenes, and his blotting it[110],\nevidently shews, were not ignorant in learned negligence. But the Zeus\nof Phidias was the standard of sublimity, the symbol of the omnipresent\nDeity; like Homer\u2019s Eris, he stood upon the earth, and reached heaven;\nhe was, in the style of sacred poesy, \u201c_What encompasses him?_ &c.\u201d And\nthe world has been candid enough to excuse, nay, even to justify on such\nreasons, the disproportions in the Carton of Raphael, representing the\nfishing of Peter[111]. The criticism on the _Diomedes_, though solid,\nis not against me: his action, abstractedly considered, with his noble\nand expressive contour, are standards of the art; and that was all I\nadvanced[112].\n\nThe reflections on the Painting and Sculpture of the Greeks may be\nreduced to four heads, viz.\n\n    I. The perfect Nature of the Greeks;\n\n    II. The Characteristicks of their works;\n\n    III. The Imitation of these;\n\n    IV. Their manner of Thinking upon the Art; and Allegory.\n\nProbability was all I pretended to, with regard to the first; which\ncannot be fully demonstrated, notwithstanding all the assistance of\nhistory. For, these advantages of the Greeks were, perhaps, less founded\non their nature, and the influences of the climate, than on their\neducation.\n\nThe happy situation of their country was, however, the basis of all; and\nthe want of resemblance, which was observed between the Athenians and\ntheir neighbours beyond the mountains, was owing to the difference of\nair and nourishment[113].\n\nThe manners and persons of the new-settled inhabitants, as well as the\nnatives of every country, have never failed of being influenced by their\ndifferent natures. The ancient Gauls, and their successors the German\nFranks, are but one nation: the blind fury, by which the former were\nhurried on in their first attacks, proved as unsuccessful to them in the\ntimes of C\u00e6sar[114], as it did to the latter in our days. They possessed\ncertain other qualities, which are still in vogue among the modern\nFrench; and the Emperor Julian[115] tells us, that in his time there were\nmore dancers than citizens at Paris.\n\nWhereas the Spaniards, managing their affairs cautiously, and with a\ncertain frigidity, kept the Romans longer than any other people from\nconquering the country[116].\n\nAnd is not this character of the old Iberians re-assumed by the\nWest-Goths, the Mauritanians, and many other people, who over-ran their\ncountry?[117]\n\nIt is easy to be imagined what advantages the Greeks, having been subject\nto the same influences of climate and air, must have reaped from the\nhappy situation of their country. The most temperate seasons reigned\nthrough all the year, and the refreshing sea-gales fanned the voluptuous\nislands of the Ionick sea, and the shores of the continent. Induced by\nthese advantages, the Peloponnesians built all their towns along the\ncoast; see Dicearchus, quoted by Cicero[118].\n\nUnder a sky so temperate, nay balanced between heat and cold, the\ninhabitants cannot fail of being influenced by both. Fruits grow ripe\nand mellow, even such as are wild improve their natures; animals thrive\nwell, and breed more abundantly. \u201cSuch a sky, says Hippocrates[119],\nproduces not only the most beautiful of men, but harmony between their\ninclinations and shape.\u201d Of which Georgia, that country of beauty,\nwhere a pure and serene sky pours fertility, is an instance[120]. Among\nthe elements, beauty owes so much to water alone, that, if we believe\nthe Indians, it cannot thrive, in a country that has it not in its\npurity[121]. And the Oracle itself attributes to the lymph of Arethusa a\npower of forming beauty[122].\n\nThe Greek tongue affords us also some arguments in behalf of their\nframe. Nature moulds the organs of speech according to the influences\nof the climate. There are nations that rather whistle than speak, like\nthe Troglodytes[123]; others that pronounce without opening their\nlips[124]; and the Phasians, a Greek people, had, as has been said of the\nEnglish[125], a hoarse voice: an unkind climate forms harsh sounds, and\nconsequently the organs of speech cannot be very delicate.\n\nThe superiority of the Greek tongue is incontestible: I do not speak now\nof its richness, but only of its harmony. For all the northern tongues,\nbeing over-loaded with consonants[126], are too often apt to offend\nwith an unpleasing austerity; whereas the Greek tongue is continually\nchanging the consonant for the vowel, and two vowels, meeting with but\none consonant, generally grow into a diphthong[127]. The sweetness of the\ntongue admits of no word ending with these three harsh letters \u0398, \u03a6, \u03a7,\nand for the sake of Euphony, readily changes letters for their kindred\nones. Some seemingly harsh words cannot be objected here; none of us\nbeing acquainted with the true Greek or Roman pronunciation. All these\nadvantages gave to the tongue a flowing softness, brought variety into\nthe sounds of its words, and facilitated their inimitable composition.\nAnd from these alone, not to mention the measure which, even in common\nconversation, every syllable enjoyed, a thing to be despaired of in\noccidental tongues; from these alone, I say, we may form the highest idea\nof the organs by which that tongue was pronounced, and may more than\nconjecture, that, by the language of the _Gods_, Homer meant the Greek,\nby that of _Men_, the Phrygian tongue.\n\nIt was chiefly owing to that abundance of vowels, that the Greek tongue\nwas preferable to all others, for expressing by the sound and disposition\nof its words the forms and substances of things. The discharge, the\nrapidity, the diminution of strength in piercing, the slowness in\ngliding, and the stopping of an arrow, are better expressed by the sound\nof these three verses of Homer, Iliad \u0394.\n\n    125. \u039b\u03af\u03b3\u03be\u03b5 \u03b2\u03b9\u1f78\u03c2, \u03bd\u03b5\u03c5\u03c1\u1f74 \u03b4\u03b5 \u03bc\u03ad\u03b3\u2019 \u1f34\u03b1\u03c7\u03b5\u03bd, \u1f06\u03bb\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u2019 \u1f40\u03ca\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2[128]\n\n    135. \u0394\u03b9\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ad\u03bd \u1f02\u03c1\u2019 \u03b6\u03c9\u03c3\u03c4\u1fc6\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03ae\u03bb\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf \u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1\u03bb\u03ad\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf,\n\n    136. \u039a\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b9\u1f70 \u03b8\u03c9\u03c1\u03b7\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03c5\u03b4\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5 \u1f20\u03c1\u03ae\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf,\n\nthan even by the words themselves. You see it discharged, flying through\nthe air, and piercing the belt of Menelaus.\n\nThe description of the Myrmidons in battle-array, Iliad \u03a0. v. 215.\n\n    \u1f08\u03c3\u03c0\u1f76\u03c2 \u1f04\u03c1\u2019 \u1f00\u03c3\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u2019 \u1f14\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5, \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cc\u03c1\u03c5\u03bd \u1f00\u03bd\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1 \u03b4\u2019 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ae\u03c1.\n\nis of the same kind, and has never been hit by any imitation: what\nbeauties in one line!\n\nPlato\u2019s periods were, from their harmony, compared[129] to a noiseless\nsmooth-running stream. But we should be mistaken in confining the tongue\nto the softer harmonies only: it became a roaring torrent, boisterous as\nthe winds by which Ulysses\u2019 sails were torn, split only in three or four\nplaces by the words, but rent by the sound into a thousand tatters[130].\nThis was the \u201c_vivida expressio_,\u201d the living sound; supremely beautiful,\nwhen properly and sparingly used!\n\nHow quick, how refined must the organs have been, which were the\ndepositaries of such a tongue! The Roman itself could not attain its\nexcellence: nay, a Greek father, of the second century of the christian\n\u00e6ra[131], complains of the horrid sound of the Roman laws.\n\nNature keeps proportion; consequently the frame of the Greeks was of a\nfine clay, of nerves, and muscles most sensibly elastic, and promoting\nthe flexibility of the body: hence that easiness, that pliant facility,\naccompanied with mirth and vigour, which animated all their actions.\nImagine bodies most nicely balanced between leanness and corpulency:\nboth extremes were ridiculed by the Greeks, and their poets sneer at the\nPhilesiases[132], Philetases[133], and Agoracrituses[134].\n\nBut though they were beautiful, and by their law early initiated into\npleasure, they were not effeminate Sybarites. As an instance of which\nwe shall only repeat what Pericles pleaded in favour of the Athenian\nmanners, against those of Sparta, which were as different from those\nof the rest of Greece, as their public oeconomy was: \u201cThe Spartans,\nsays Pericles, employ their youth to get, by violent exercises, manly\nstrength: but we, though living indolently, encounter every danger as\nwell as they; calmly, not anxiously, mindful of its approaches, we meet\nit with voluntary magnanimity, and without any compulsion of the law. Not\ndisconcerted by its impending threats, we meet its most furious attacks,\nwith no less boldness than they, whom perpetual practice has prepared for\nits strokes. We are fond of elegance, without loving finery; of genius,\nwithout being emasculate. In short, to be fit for every great enterprize,\nis the characteristic of the Athenians[135].\u201d\n\nI cannot, nor will I pretend to fix a rule without allowing exceptions.\nThere was a Thersites in the army of the Greeks. But it is worth\nobserving, that the beauty of a nation was always in proportion to their\ncultivation of the arts. Thebes, wrapt up in a misty sky, produced a\nsturdy uncouth race[136],[137]according to Hippocrates\u2019s observation on\nfenny, watry soils[138]; and its sterility in producing men of genius,\nPindar only excepted, is an old reproach. Sparta was as defective in this\nrespect as Thebes, having only Alcman to boast of; but the reasons were\ndifferent: whereas Attica enjoyed a pure and serene sky, which refined\nthe senses[139], and of course shaped their bodies in proportion to that\nrefinement; and Athens was the seat of arts. The same remark may be made\nwith regard to Sicyon, Corinth, Rhodes, Ephesus, &c. all which having\nbeen schools of the arts, could not want convenient models. The passage\nof Aristophanes, insisted on in the letter[140], I take for a joke, as\nit really is\u2014and thereby hangs a tale: to have the parts, whereon\n\n    _Sedet \u00e6ternumque sedebit_\n    _Infelix Theseus,_\n\n    Virg.\n\nmoderately complete, were Attick beauties. Theseus[141], made prisoner by\nthe Thesprotians, was delivered from his captivity by Hercules, but not\nwithout some loss of the parts in question; a loss bequeathed to all his\nrace. This was the true mark of the Thesean pedigree; as a natural mark,\nrepresenting a spear[142], signified a Spartan extraction; and we find\nthe Greek artists imitating in those places the sparing hand of nature.\n\nBut this liberality of nature was confined to Greece, in a narrower\nsense. Its colonies underwent the same fate, which its eloquence met with\nwhen going abroad. \u201cAs soon, says Cicero[143], as eloquence set out from\nthe Athenian port, she plumed herself with the manners of all the islands\nin her way, adopted the Asiatick luxury, and forsaking her sound Attick\nexpression, lost her health.\u201d The Ionians, transplanted by Nileus from\nGreece into Asia, after the return of the Heraclides, grew still more\nvoluptuous beneath that glowing sky. Heaps of vowels brought wantonness\ninto every word; the neighbouring islands partook of their climate and\nmanners, which a single Lesbian coin may convince us of[144]. No wonder\nthen, if their bodies degenerated as much from those of their ancestors,\nas their manners.\n\nThe remoter the colonies the greater the difference. Those Greeks, who\nhad chosen their abode in Africa, about _Pithicussa_, fell in with the\nnatives in adoring apes; nay, even gave the names of those animals to\ntheir children[145].\n\nThe modern Greeks, though composed of various mingled metals, still\nbetray the chief mass. Barbarism has destroyed the very elements of\nscience, and ignorance over-clouds the whole country; education, courage,\nmanners are sunk beneath an iron sway, and even the shadow of liberty is\nlost. Time, in its course, dissipates the remains of antiquity: pillars\nof Apollo\u2019s temple at Delos[146], are now the ornaments of English\ngardens: the nature of the country itself is changed. In days of yore the\nplants of Crete[147] were famous over all the world; but now the streams\nand rivers, where you would go in quest of them, are mantled with wild\nluxuriant weeds, and trivial vegetables[148].\n\nUnhappy country! How could it avoid being changed into a wilderness, when\nsuch populous tracts of land as Samos, once mighty enough to balance the\nAthenian power at sea, are reduced to hideous desarts[149]!\n\nNotwithstanding all these devastations, the forlorn prospect of the soil,\nthe free passage of the winds, stopped by the inextricable windings of\nentangled shores, and the want of almost all other commodities; yet have\nthe modern Greeks preserved many of the prerogatives of their ancestors.\nThe inhabitants of several islands, (the Greek race being chiefly\npreserved in the islands), near the Natolian shore, especially the\nfemales, are, by the unanimous account of travellers, the most beautiful\nof the human race[150].\n\nAttica still preserves its air of philanthropy[151]: all the shepherds\nand clowns welcomed the two travellers, Spon and Wheeler; nay, prevented\nthem with their salutations[152]: neither have they lost the Attick salt,\nor the enterprising spirit of the former inhabitants[153].\n\nObjections have been made against their early exercises, as rather\nderogating from, than adding to, the beauteous form of the Greek youths.\n\nIndeed, the continual efforts of the nerves and muscles seem rather to\ngive an angular gladiatorial turn, than the soft Contour of beauty, to\nyouthful bodies. But this may partly be answered by the character of the\nnation itself: their fancy, their actions, were easy and natural; their\naffairs, as Pericles says, were managed with a certain carelessness, and\nsome of Plato\u2019s dialogues[154] may give us an idea of that mirth and\nchearfulness which prevailed in all the Gymnastick exercises of their\nyouth. Hence his desire of having these places, in his commonwealth,\nfrequented by old folks, in order to remind them of the joys of their\nyouth[155].\n\nTheir games commonly began at sun rise[156]; and Socrates frequented\nthem at that time. They chose the morning-hours, in order to avoid being\nincommoded by the heat: as soon as their garments were laid down, the\nbody was anointed with the elegant Attick oil, partly to defend it from\nthe bleak morning-air; as it was usual to practice, even during the\nseverest cold[157]; and partly to prevent a too copious perspiration,\nwhere it was intended only to carry off superfluous humours[158]. To\nthis oil they ascribed also a strengthening quality[159]. The exercises\nbeing over, they went to bathe, and there submitted to a fresh unction;\nand a person leaving the bath in this state \u201cappears, says Homer, taller,\nstronger, and similar to the immortal Gods[160].\u201d\n\nWe may form a very distinct idea of the different kinds and degrees of\nwrestling among the ancients, from a vase once in the possession of\nCharl. Patin, and, as he guesses, the urn of a gladiator[161].\n\nHad it been a prevailing custom among the Greeks to walk, either\nbarefooted, like the heroes in their performances[162], or with a single\nsole, as we commonly believe, their feet must have been bruised. But\nthere are many instances of their extreme nicety in this respect; for,\nthey had names for above ten different sorts of shoes[163].\n\nThe coverings of the thighs were thrown off at the publick exercises,\neven before the flourishing of the art[164]; which was a great advantage\nto the artists. As for the nourishment of the wrestlers in remoter times,\nI found it more proper to mention milk in general, than soft cheese.\n\nIf I remember right, you think it strange, and even undemonstrable, that\nthe primitive church should have dipped their proselytes, promiscuously:\nconsult the note[165].\n\nAs I am now entering upon the discussion of my second point, I could wish\nthat these probabilities of a more perfect nature, among the Greeks,\nmight be allowed to have some conclusive weight; and then I should have\nbut a few words to add.\n\n_Charmoleos_, a Megarian youth, a single kiss of whom was valued at two\ntalents[166], was, no doubt, beautiful enough to serve for a model of\n_Apollo_: Him, _Alcibiades_, _Charmides_, and _Adimanthus_[167], the\nartists could see and study to their wish for several hours every day:\nand can you imagine those trifling opportunities proposed to the Parisian\nartists, equivalents for the loss of advantages like these? But granting\nthat, pray, what is there to be seen more in a swimmer than in any other\nperson? The extremities of the body you may see every where. As for that\nauthor[168], who pretends to find in France beauties superior to those\nof _Alcibiades_, I cannot help doubting his ability to maintain what he\nasserts.\n\nWhat has been said hitherto might also answer the objection drawn from\nthe judgment of our academies, concerning those parts of the body which\nought to be drawn rather more angular than we find them in the antiques.\nThe Greeks, and their artists, were happy in the enjoyment of figures\nendowed with youthful harmony; for, we have no reason to doubt their\nexactness in copying nature, if we only consider the angular smartness\nwith which they drew the wrist-bones. _Agasias_\u2019s celebrated _Gladiator_,\nin the _Borghese_, has none of the modern angles, nor the bony\nprominences authorised by our artists: all his angular parts are those we\nmeet with in the other Greek statues. And this statue, which was perhaps\none of those that were erected, in the very places where the games were\nheld, to the memory of the several victors, may be supposed an exact\ncopy of nature. The artist was bound to represent any victor in the very\nattitude, and instantaneous motion, in which he overcame his antagonist,\nand the _Amphictyones_ were the judges of his performance[169].\n\nMany authors having written on this, and the following point of the\ntreatise, I have contented myself with giving a few remarks of my own.\nSuperficial arguments, in matters of this kind, can neither suit the\ndeeper views of our times, nor lead to general conclusions. Nevertheless\nwe do not want authors whose premature decisions often get the better of\ntheir judgment, and that not in matters concerning the art alone. Pray,\nwhat decisions of an author may be depended upon, who, when designing to\nwrite on the arts in general, shews himself so ignorant of their very\nelements, as to ascribe to _Thucydides_, whose concise and energetick\nstyle was not without difficulties, even for _Tully_[170], the character\nof simplicity?[171] Another of that tribe, seems as little acquainted\nwith _Diodorus Siculus_, when he describes him as hunting after\nelegance[172]. Nor want we blockheads enough who admire, in the ancient\nperformances, such trifles as are below any reasonable man\u2019s attention.\n\u201cThe rope, says a travelling scribler, which ties together Dirce and the\nox, is to connoisseurs the most beautiful object of the whole groupe of\nthe Toro Farnese[173].\u201d\n\n    _Ah miser \u00e6grota putruit cui mente salillum!_\n\nI am no stranger to those merits of the modern artists which you oppose\nto the ancients: but at the same time I know, that the imitation of these\nalone has elevated the others to that pitch of merit; and it would be\neasy to prove that, whenever they forsook the ancients, they fell into\nthe faults of those, whom alone I intended to blame.\n\nNature undoubtedly misled Bernini: a _Carita_ of his, on the monument\nof Pope Urban the VIIIth, is said to be corpulent, and another on that\nof Alexander the VIIth, even ugly[174]. Certain it is, that no use\ncould be made of the Equestrian statue of Lewis XIV. on which he had\nbestowed fifteen years, and the King immense sums. He was represented\nas ascending, on horseback, the mount of honour: but the action both of\nthe rider and of the horse was exaggerated, and too violent; which was\nthe cause of baptizing it a Curtius plunging into the gulph, and its\nhaving been placed only in the Thuilleries: from which we may infer,\nthat the most anxious imitation of nature is as little sufficient for\nattaining beauty, as the study of anatomy alone for attaining the justest\nproportions: these Lairesse, by his own account, took from the skeletons\nof Bidloo; but, though a professor in his art, committed many faults,\nwhich the good Roman school, especially Raphael, cannot be charged with.\nHowever, it is not meant that there is no heaviness in his Venus; nor\ndoes it clear him from the faults imputed to him in the Massacre of the\nInnocents, engraved by Marc. Antonio, as has been attempted in a very\nrare treatise on painting[175]; for there the female figures labour\nunder an exuberance of breasts; whereas the murderers look ghastly with\nleanness: a contrast not to be admired: the sun itself has spots.\n\nLet Raphael be imitated in his best manner, and when in his prime; those\nworks want no apology: it was to no purpose to produce Parrhasius and\nZeuxis in order to excuse Him, and the Dutch proportions! \u2019Tis true, the\npassage of Pliny[176], which you quote concerning Parrhasius, meets\ncommonly with the same interpretation, viz. _that, shunning corpulency\nhe fell into leanness_[177]. But supposing Pliny to have understood what\nhe wrote, we must clear him of contradicting himself. A little before\nhe allowed to Parrhasius a superiority in the contour, or in his own\nwords, _in the outlines_; and in the passage before us, _Parrhasius,\ncompared with himself, seems, in POINT OF THE MIDDLE PARTS, to fall short\nof himself_. The question is, what he means by middle parts? Perhaps\nthe parts bordering on the outlines: but is not the designer obliged to\nknow every possible attitude of the frame, every change of its contour?\nIf so, it is ridiculous to give this explication to our passage: for\nthe middle parts of a full face are the outlines of its profile, and\nso on. Consequently, there is no such thing as middle parts to be met\nwith by a designer: the idea of a painter, well-skilled in the contour\nof the outlines, but ignorant of their contents, is an absurd one.\nParrhasius perhaps either wanted skill in the Chiaroscuro, or Keeping\nin the disposition of his limbs, and this seems the only explication,\nwhich the words of Pliny can reasonably admit of. Unless we choose to\nmake him another La Fage, who, though a celebrated designer, never\nfailed spoiling his contours with his colours. Or, perhaps, to indulge\nanother conjecture, Parrhasius smoothed the outlines of his contour,\nwhere it bordered on the grounds, in order to avoid being rough; a fault\ncommitted, as it seems, by his contemporaries, and by the artists who\nflourished in the beginning of the sixteenth century, who circumscribed\ntheir figures, as it were with a knife; but those smooth contours wanted\nthe support of keeping, and of masses gradually rising or sinking, in\norder to become round, and to strike the eye: by failing in which,\nhis figures got an air of flatness; and thus Parrhasius fell short of\nhimself, without being either too corpulent or too lean.\n\nWe cannot conclude, from the Homeric shape which Zeuxis gave his female\nfigures, that he raised them, like Rubens, into flesh-hills. There is\nsome reason to believe, from the education of the Spartan ladies, that\nthey had something of a masculine vigour, though they were the chief\nbeauties of Greece; and such a one is the Helena of Theocritus.\n\nAll this makes me doubt of finding among the ancients any companion for\nJacob Jordans, though he is so zealously defended in your letter. Nor am\nI afraid of maintaining what I have said concerning him. Mr. d\u2019Argenville\nis indeed a very industrious collector of criticisms upon the artists;\nbut as his design is not very extensive, so his decisions are often too\ngeneral, to afford us characteristical ideas of his heroes.\n\nA good eye must be allowed to be a better judge, in matters of this kind,\nthan all the ambiguous decisions of authors: and to fix the character\nof Jordans, I might content myself with appealing to his Diogenes,\nand the Purification, in the royal cabinet at Dresden. But, for the\nreader\u2019s sake, let me inquire into the meaning of what you call _Truth_\nin painting. For if truth, in the general sense, can by no means be\nexcluded from any branch of the arts, we have, in the decision of Mr.\nd\u2019Argenville, a riddle to unfold, which, if it has any meaning at all,\nmust have the following:\n\nRubens, enabled by the inexhaustible fertility of his genius, to\npour forth fictions like Homer himself, displays his riches even to\nprodigality: like him he loved the marvellous, as well in thought and\ngrandeur of conception, as in composition, and chiar\u2019-oscuro. His\nfigures are composed in a manner unknown before him, and his lights,\njointly darting upon one great mass, diffuse over all his works a bold\nharmony, and amazing spirit. Jordans, a genius of a lower class, cannot,\nin the ideal part of painting, by any means be compared with his great\nmaster. He had no wings to soar above nature; for which reason he humbly\nfollowed, and painted her as he found her: and if this be _truth_, he, no\ndoubt, had a larger share of it than Rubens.\n\nIf the modern artists, with regard to forms and beauty, are not to be\ndirected by antiquity, there is no authority left to influence them.\nSome, in painting Venus, would give her a Frenchified air[178]; another\nwould present her with an Aquiline nose, the Medicean Venus, as they\nwould say, having such a one[179]: her hands would be provided with\nspindles instead of fingers; and she would ogle us with Chinese eyes,\nlike the beauties of a new Italian school. Every artist, in short, would,\nby his performance, betray his country: but, as Democritus says[180],\nif the artists ought to pray the gods to let them meet with none but\nauspicious images, those of the ancients will best suit their wishes.\n\nLet us, however, make some exception in favour of Fiamingo\u2019s children.\nFor, lustiness and full health being the common burden of the praises of\nchildren, whose infant forms are not strictly susceptible of that beauty,\nwhich belongs to the steadiness of riper years; the imitation of his\nchildren has reasonably become a fashion among our artists. But neither\nthis, nor the indulgence of the academy at Vienna, can be, or indeed was\nmeant to be decisive, in favour of the modern children; it only leads us\nto make a distinction. The ancients went beyond nature, even in their\nchildren: the moderns only follow her; and, provided their infant forms,\nexuberant as they are, do not influence their ideas of youthful and riper\nbodies, they may be allowed to be in the right, though, at the same time,\nthe ancients were not in the wrong.\n\nOur artists are, likewise, at full liberty to dress the hair of their\nfigures as they please: but, being so fond of nature, they, must needs\nknow, that it is nature which shades, with pendant locks, the forehead\nand temples of all those, whose life is not spent between the comb and\nthe looking-glass: and finding this manner carefully observed in most\nstatues of the ancients, they may take it as a proof of their attachment\nto simplicity and truth; a proof of the more weight, as they did not want\npeople, busier in adorning their bodies than their minds, and as nice\nin adjusting their hair, as the most elegant of our European courtiers.\nBut it was commonly looked upon as a mark of an ingenuous and noble\nextraction, to dress the hair in the manner of the statues[181].\n\nThe imitation of the ancient contour has indeed never been rejected, not\neven by those whose chief want was that of correctness: but we differ\nabout imitating that \u201cnoble simplicity and sedate grandeur\u201d in their\nworks. An expression which hath seldom met with general approbation, and\nnever pronounced without hazard of being misunderstood.\n\nIn the Hercules of Bandinelli, the idea of it was deemed a fault[182]: an\nusurpation in Raphael\u2019s Massacre of the Innocents[183].\n\nThe idea of \u201cnature at rest,\u201d I own, might, perhaps, produce figures like\nthe young Spartans of Xenophon; nor would the bulk of mankind be better\npleased with performances in the taste of my treatise, (supposing even\nall its precepts authorised by the judges of the art) than with a speech\nmade before the Areopagites. But it is not on the bulk of mankind that\nwe ought to confer the legislative power in the art. And though works of\nan extensive composition ought certainly to have the support of a vigour\nand spirit proportioned to their extent, yet there are limits which must\nnot be overleapt: use not so much spirit as to represent the everlasting\nFather like the cruel God of war, or an ecstasied saint like a priestess\nof Bacchus.\n\nIndeed, in the eyes of one unacquainted with this characteristick of\nthe sublime, a Madonna of Trevisani will seem preferable to that of\nRaphael in the royal cabinet at Dresden. I know that even artists were\nof opinion, that its being placed so near one of the former, was not a\nlittle disadvantageous to it. Hence it seemed not superfluous to enquire\ninto the true grandeur of that inestimable picture, as it is the only\nproduction of this Apollo of painters, that Germany is possessed of.\n\nNo comparison, indeed, is to be made of its composition with that of the\ntransfiguration; which, however, I think fully compensated by its being\ngenuine: whereas Julio Romano might perhaps claim one half of the other\nas his own. The difference of the hands is visible: but in the Madonna,\nthe spirit of that epoch, in which Raphael performed his Athenian school,\nshines with so full a lustre, as to make even the authority of Vasari\nsuperfluous.\n\n\u2019Tis no easy matter to convince a critick, conceited enough to blame the\nJesus of the Madonna, that he is mistaken. Pythagoras, says an antient\nphilosopher[184], and Anaxagoras look at the sun with different eyes: the\nformer sees a God, the latter a stone. We want but experience to discover\ntruth and beauty in the faces of Raphael, without enquiring into their\ndignity: beauty pleases, but serious graces charm[185]. Such are the\nbeauties of the ancients, which gave that serious air to Antinous, which\nwe generally ascribe to his shading locks. Sudden raptures, or the\nenticement of a glance, are often momentary; let an attentive eye dwell\nupon those confused beauties which the transient look conveys, and the\npaint will vanish. True charms owe their durability to reflection, and\nhidden graces allure our enquiries: reluctant and unsatisfied we leave a\ncoy beauty, in continual admiration of some new-fancied charm: and such\nare the beauties of Raphael and the ancients; not agreeably trifling\nones, but regular and full of real graces[186]. By that Cleopatra became\nthe beauty of all ensuing ages: nobody[187] was astonished at her face,\nbut her air engaged every eye, and subdued the melted heart. A French\nVenus at her toilet is much like Seneca\u2019s wit: which, if put to the test,\ndisappears[188].\n\nThe comparison of Raphael and some of the most celebrated Dutch, and\nnew Italian painters, concerns only the management, (_Trattamento_).\nThe endeavours of the former of these, to hide the laborious industry\nthat appears in all their works, gives an additional sanction to my\njudgment; for, hiding is labour. The most difficult part in performances\nof the arts, is to spread an air of easiness, the \u201cUT SIBI QUIVIS\u201d over\nthem[189]; of which, among the ancients, the pictures of Nicomachus were\nentirely destitute[190].\n\nAll this, however, is not meant to derogate from Vanderwerf\u2019s superior\nmerit: his works give a lustre even to the cabinets of kings. He diffused\nover them an inconceivable polish; every trace of his pencil, one would\nthink, is molten; and, in the colliquation of his tints, there reigns but\none predominant colour. He might be said to have enamelled rather than\npainted.\n\nHis works indeed please. But does the character of painting consist in\npleasing alone? Denner\u2019s bald pates please likewise. But what, do you\nimagine, would the wise ancients think of them? Plutarch, from the mouth\nof some Aristides or Zeuxis, would tell him, that beauty never dwells in\nwrinkles[191].\n\n\u2019Tis said, the Emperor Charles VI. when he first saw one of Denner\u2019s\npictures, was loud in its praise, and in admiration of his industry.\nThe painter was immediately desired to make a fellow to the first, and\nwas magnificently rewarded: but the Emperor, comparing each of them\nwith some pieces of Rembrandt and Vandyke, declared, \u201cthat having now\nsatisfied his curiosity, he would on no account have any more from this\nartist.\u201d An English nobleman was of the same opinion: for being shewn\na picture of Denner\u2019s, \u201cYou are in the wrong, said he, if you believe\nthat our nation esteems performances, which owe their merits to industry\nrather than to genius.\u201d\n\nI am far from applying these remarks to Vanderwerf; the difference\nbetween him and Denner is too great: I only joined them in order to\nprove, that a picture which only pleases can no more pretend to universal\napprobation than a poem. No; their charms must be durable; but here\nwe meet with causes of disgust in the very parts, where the painter\nendeavoured to please us.\n\nThose parts of nature that are beyond observation, were the chief\nobjects of these painters: they were particularly cautious of changing\nthe situation even of the minutest hair, in order to surprize the most\nsharp-sighted eye with all the microcosm of nature. They may be compared\nto those disciples of Anaxagoras, who placed all human wisdom in the palm\nof the hand\u2014but mark, as soon as they attempt to stretch their art beyond\nthese limits, to draw larger proportions, or the nudities, the painter\nappears\n\n    _Infelix operis summ\u00e2, quia ponere totum nescit._\n\n    Hor.\n\nDesign is as certainly the painter\u2019s first, second, and third requisite,\nas action is that of the orator.\n\nI readily allow the solidity of your remarks, concerning the \u201creliefs\u201d\nof the ancients. In my treatise I myself charged them with a want of\nsufficient skill in perspective; and hence the faults in their reliefs.\n\nThe fourth point chiefly concerns _Allegory_.\n\nIn painting we commonly call fiction allegory: for, though imitation\narises from the very principles of painting as well as of poetry,\nit constitutes, by itself, neither of them[192]. A picture, without\nallegory, is but a vulgar image, and resembles Davenant\u2019s Gondibert, an\nepop\u00e9e without fiction.\n\nColouring and design are to painting what metre and truth, or the fable,\nare to poetry; a body without soul. Poetry, says Aristotle, was first\ninspired with its soul, with fiction, by Homer; and with that the painter\nmust animate his work. Design and colouring are the fruits of attention\nand practice: perspective and composition, in the strictest sense, are\nestablished on fixed rules; they are of course but mechanical; and, if\nI may be allowed the expression, only mechanical souls are wanting to\nunderstand and to admire them.\n\nPleasures in general, save only those which rob the bulk of mankind\nof their invaluable treasure, time, become durable, and are free from\ntediousness and disgust, in proportion as they engage our intellectual\nfaculties. Mere sensual sentiments soon languish; they do not influence\nour reason: such is the delight we take in the common landscape, flower,\nand fruit paintings: the artist, in performing them, thinks but very\nlittle; and the connoisseur, in considering them, thinks no more.\n\nA mere history-piece differs from a landscape only in the object: in the\nformer you draw facts and persons, in the latter, sky, land, seas, &c.\nboth, of course, being founded on the same principle, imitation, are\nessentially but of one kind.\n\nIf it be not a contradiction to stretch the limits of painting, as far as\nthose of poetry, and consequently, to allow the painter the same ability\nof elevating himself to the pitch of the poet as the musician enjoys; it\nis clear that history, though the sublimest branch of painting, cannot\nraise itself to the heighths of tragick or epick poetry, by imitation\nalone.\n\nHomer, as Cicero tells us[193], has transformed man into God: which is\nto say; he not only exceeded truth, but, to raise his fiction, preferred\neven the impossible, if probable, to the barely possible[194]. In this\nAristotle fixes the very essence of poetry, and tells us that the\npictures of Zeuxis had that characteristick. The possibility and truth,\nwhich Longinus requires of the painter, as opposites to absurdity in\npoetry, are not contradictory to this rule.\n\nThis heighth the history-painter cannot reach, only by a contour above\ncommon nature, or a noble expression of the passions: for these are\nrequisite in a good portrait-painter, who is able to execute them\nwithout diminishing the likeness of his model. They are but imitation,\nonly prudently managed. The heads of Vandyke are charged with too\nexact an observation of nature; an exactness that would be faulty in a\nhistory-piece.\n\nTruth, lovely as it is in itself, charms more, penetrates deeper, when\ninvested with fiction: fable, in its strictest sense, is the delight of\nchildhood; allegory that of riper years. And the old opinion, that poetry\nwas of earlier date than prose, as unanimously attested by the annals\nof different people, makes it evident, that even in the most barbarous\ntimes, truth was preferred, when appearing in this dress.\n\nOur understanding, moreover, labours under the fault of bestowing its\nattention chiefly on things, whose beauties are not to be perceived at\nfirst sight, and of inadvertently slighting others, because clear as\nday: images of this kind, like a ship on the waves, leave but momentary\ntraces in our memory. Hence the ideas of our childhood are the most\npermanent, because every common occurrence then seems extraordinary.\nThus, if nature herself instructs us, that she is not to be moved by\ncommon things, let art, as the Orator, ad Herennium, advises us, follow\nher dictates.\n\nEvery idea increases in strength, if accompanied by another or more\nideas, as in comparisons; and the more still as they differ in kind: for\nideas, too analogous to each other, do not strike: as for instance, a\nwhite skin compared to snow. Hence the power of discovering a similarity,\nin the most different things, is what we commonly call wit; Aristotle,\n\u201cunexpected ideas\u201d: and these he requires in an orator[195]. The more you\nare surprized by a picture, the more you are affected; and both those\neffects are to be obtained by allegory, like to fruit hid beneath leaves\nand branches, which when found surprizes the more agreeably, the less it\nwas thought of. The smallest composition is susceptible of the sublimest\npowers of art: all depends upon the idea.\n\nNecessity first taught the artists to use allegory. No doubt, they began\nwith the representation of single objects of one class: but as they\nimproved, they attempted to express what was common to many particulars;\n_i. e._ general ideas. All the qualities of single objects afford such\nideas: but to become general, and at the same time sensible, they cannot\npreserve the particular shape of such or such an object, but must be\nsubmitted to another shape, essential to that object, but a general one.\n\nThe Egyptians were the first, who went in search of images of that kind.\nSuch were their hieroglyphicks. All the deities of antiquity, especially\nthose of Greece, nay, their very names, were originally Egyptian[196].\nTheir personal theology was quite allegorical; and so is ours. But the\nsymbols of these inventors, partly preserved by the Greeks, were often so\nmysteriously arbitrary, as to make it altogether impossible to find out\ntheir meaning, even by the help of those authors that are still extant;\nand such a discovery was looked upon as a nefarious profanation[197].\nThus sacredly mysterious was the pomegranate[198] in the hand of the\nSamian Juno: and to divulge the Eleusinian rites, was thought worse than\nthe robbery of a temple[199].\n\nThe relation of the sign to the thing signified, was in some measure\nfounded on the known or pretended qualities of the latter. The Egyptian\nHorsemarten was of that kind; an image of the sun, because his species\nwas said to have no female, and to live six months under and six above\nground[200]. In like manner the cat, being supposed to bring forth a\nnumber of kittens equal to that of the days in a month, became the symbol\nof Isis, or the moon[201].\n\nThe Greeks, on the contrary, endowed with more wit, and undoubtedly with\nmore sensibility, made use of no signs but such as had a true relation\nto the thing signified, or were most agreeable to the senses: all their\ndeities they invested with human forms[202]. Wings, among the Egyptians,\nwere the symbol of eager and effectual services; a symbol conformable to\ntheir nature, and continued by the Greeks: and if the Attick _Victoria_\nhad none, it was meant to signify, that she had chosen Athens for her\nabode[203]. A goose, among the Egyptians, was the symbol of a cautious\nleader; in consequence of which the prows of their ships were formed like\ngeese[204]. This the Greeks preserved also, and the ancient _Rostrum_\nresembled the neck of a goose[205].\n\nOf all the figures, whose relation to their intended meaning is somewhat\nobscure, the Sphinx perhaps alone was continued by the Greeks. Placed in\nthe front of a temple, it was, among the Greeks, almost as instructive,\nas it was significant among the Egyptians[206]. The Greek Sphinx was\nwinged[207], its head bare, without that stole which it wears on some\nAttick coins[208].\n\nIt was in general a characteristic of the Greeks, to mark their\nproductions with a certain chearfulness: the muses love not hideous\nphantoms: and Homer himself, when by the mouth of some god he cites an\nEgyptian allegory, always cautiously begins with \u201cWE ARE TOLD.\u201d Nay,\nthe elder Pampho[209], though he exceeds the Egyptian oddities, by his\ndescription of Jupiter wrapt up in horse-dung, approaches nevertheless\nthe sublime idea of the English poet:\n\n    _As full, as perfect, in a hair as heart;_\n    _As full, as perfect, in vile man that mourns,_\n    _As the rapt seraph, that adores and burns._\n\n    Pope.\n\nIt will be no easy matter to find, among the old Greek coins, an image\nlike that of a snake encircling an egg[210], on a Syrian coin of the\nthird century. None of their monuments are marked with any thing\nghastly: of these they were, if possible, still more cautious than of\nill-omen\u2019d words. The image of death is not to be seen, perhaps, but\non one gem[211], and that in the shape commonly exhibited at their\nfeasts[212]; _viz._ dancing to a flute, with intent to make them enjoy\nthe present pleasures of life, by reminding them of its shortness. On\nanother gem[213], with a Roman inscription, there is a skeleton, with two\nbutterflies as images of the soul, one of which is caught by a bird; a\npretended symbol of the metempsychosis: but the performance is of latter\ntimes.\n\nIt has been likewise observed, that[214] among those myriads of altars,\nsacred even to the most whimsical deities, there never was one set apart\nto death; save only on the solitary coasts, which were deemed the\nborders of the world[215].\n\nThe Romans, in their best times, thought like the Greeks; and always,\nin adopting the iconology of a foreign nation, traced the footsteps of\nthese their masters. An elephant, one of the latter mysterious symbols of\nthe Egyptians[216] (for there is on the most ancient monuments neither\nelephant[217] nor hart, ostrich nor cock, to be found), was the image of\ndifferent things[218], and perhaps of eternity, as on some Roman[219]\ncoins, because of his longevity. But on a coin of the emperor Antoninus,\nthis animal, with the inscription, MUNIFICENTIA, cannot possibly hint\nat any other thing but the grand games, the magnificence of which was\naugmented by those animals.\n\nBut it is no more my design to attempt an inquiry into the origin of\nevery allegorical symbol among the Greeks and Romans, than to write a\nsystem of allegory. All I propose is, to defend what I have advanced\nconcerning it, and at the same time to direct the artist to the images of\nthose ancients, in preference to the iconologies and ill-judged symbols\nof some moderns.\n\nWe may, from a little specimen, form a judgment of the turn of mind of\nthose ancients, and of the possibility of subjecting abstracted ideas\nto the senses. The symbols of many a gem, coin, and monument, enjoy\ntheir fixed and universally received interpretation; but some of the\nmost memorable, not yet brought to a proper standard, deserve a nearer\ndetermination.\n\nPerhaps the allegory of the ancients might be divided, like painting and\npoetry in general, into two classes, _viz._ the _sublime_, and the _more\nvulgar_. Symbols of the one might be those by which some mythological\nor philosophical allusion, or even some unknown or mysterious rite, is\nexpressed.\n\nSuch as are more commonly understood, _viz._ personified virtues, vices,\n_&c._ might be referred to the other.\n\nThe images of the former give to performances of the art the true epick\ngrandeur: one single figure is sufficient to give it: the more it\ncontains, the sublimer it is: the more it engages our attention, the\ndeeper it penetrates, and we of course feel it the more.\n\nThe ancients, in order to represent a child dying in his bloom, painted\nhim carried off by Aurora[220]: a striking image! taken, perhaps, from\nthe custom of burying youths at day-break. The ideas of the bulk of our\nartists, in this respect, are too trivial to be mentioned here.\n\nThe animation of the body, one of the most abstracted ideas, was\nrepresented by the loveliest, most poetical images. An artist, who\nshould imagine he could express this idea by the Mosaick creation, would\nbe mistaken; for his image would be merely historical, and nothing\nbut the creation of Adam: a history altogether too sacred for being\neither admitted as the allegory of a mere philosophical idea, or into\nevery place: neither does it seem poetical enough for the flights of\nthe art. This idea appears on coins and gems[221], as described by the\nmost ancient poets and philosophers: Prometheus forming a man of that\nclay, of which large petrified heaps were found in Phocis in the time\nof Pausanias[222]; and Minerva holding a butterfly, as an image of the\nsoul, over his head. The snake encircling a tree behind Minerva, on the\nabove coin of Antoninus Pius, is a supposed symbol of his prudence and\nsagacity.\n\nIt cannot be denied that the meaning of many an ancient allegory\nis merely conjectural, and therefore not to be applied on every\noccasion. A child catching a butterfly on an altar was pretended to\nsignify _Amicitia ad aras_, or, \u201cwhich is not to exceed the borders of\njustice[223].\u201d On another gem, Love, endeavouring to pull off the branch\nof an old tree, where a nightingale is perching, is said to allegorize\nlove of wisdom[224]. _Eros_, _Himeros_, and _Pathos_, the symbols of\nLove, Appetite, and Desire, are represented, they say[225], on a gem,\nencompassing the sacred fire on an altar; Love behind the fire, his head\nonly over-reaching the flames; Appetite and Desire on both sides of the\naltar; Appetite with one hand only in the fire, with the other holding a\ngarland; Desire with both his hands in the flames. A _Victoria_ crowning\nan anchor, on a coin of king Seleucus, was formerly regarded as an image\nof peace and security procured by victory, till by the help of history we\nhave been enabled to give it its true interpretation. Seleucus is said to\nhave been born with a mark resembling an anchor[226], which not only he\nhimself, but all his descendants, the Seleucid\u00e6, have preserved on their\ncoins[227].\n\nThere is another Victoria with butterfly\u2019s wings[228], fastened on a\ntrophy. This, they say, is the symbol of a hero, who, like Epaminondas,\ndied in the very act of conquering. At Athens such a statue[229], and an\naltar to an unwinged Victoria, was the symbol of their perpetual success\nin battle: ours may admit of the same explication as Mars in chains at\nSparta[230]. Nor was she, as I presume, provided at random with wings\nusually given to Psyche, her own being those of an eagle: they perhaps\nsignify the soul of the deceased: however, all these conjectures might be\ntolerable, if a Victoria fastened on trophies of conquered enemies could\nreasonably correspond with their being vanquished.\n\nIndeed the sublimer allegory of the ancients has not been transmitted to\nus, without the loss of its most valuable treasures: it is poor, when\ncompared with the second kind, which is often provided with several\nsymbols for one idea. Two different ones, signifying the happiness of\nthe times, are expressed on coins of the emperor Commodus: the one a\nlady[231], sitting with an apple or ball in her right, and a dial in her\nleft hand, beneath a leafy tree: three children are before her, two in a\nvase or flower-pot, the usual symbol of fertility: the other represents\nfour children, who, as is clear by the things they bear, are the seasons.\nBoth have the subscription FELICITAS TEMPORVM.\n\nBut these, and all the symbols that want inscriptions, are of a lower\nrank; and some of them might as well be taken for signs of different\nideas. Hope[232] and Fertility[233], for instance, might be Ceres,\nNobility[234], Minerva. Patience[235], on a coin of Aurelian, wants her\ntrue characteristick, as does Erato; and the Parc\u00e6[236] are only by their\ngarments distinguished from the Graces. On the contrary, ideas which are\noften confounded in morality, as Justice and Equity, are extremely well\ndistinguished by the ancients. The former is represented, as drawn by\n_Gellius_[237], with a stern look, a diadem, and dressed hair[238]; the\nlatter with a mild countenance, and waving ringlets; ears of corn arising\nfrom her balance, as symbols of the advantages of equity; and sometimes\nshe holds in her other hand[239] a cornu-copia.\n\nPeace, on a coin of the emperor Titus, is to be ranked among those of a\nmore energetick expression. The goddess of Peace leans on a pillar with\nher left arm, in the hand of which she holds the branch of an olive-tree,\nwhilst the other waves the caduceus over the thigh of a victim on a\nlittle altar, which hints at the bloodless sacrifices of that goddess:\nthe victims were slaughtered out of the temple, and nothing but the\nthighs were offered at the altar, which was not to be stained with blood.\n\nPeace usually appears with the olive-branch and the caduceus, as on\nanother coin of this emperor[240]; or on a stool placed on a heap of\narms, as on a coin of Drusus[241]. On some of Tiberius\u2019s and Vespasian\u2019s\ncoins[242] Peace appears in the act of burning arms.\n\nOn a coin of the Emperor Philip there is a noble image; a sleeping\nVictory: which, with better reason, may be taken for the symbol of\nconfidence in conquest, than for that in the security of the world as\nthe inscription pretends. Of an analogous idea was the picture, by which\nthe Athenian General Timotheus was ridiculed, for the blind luck with\nwhich he obtained his victories: he was represented asleep, with Fortune\ncatching Towns in her Net[243].\n\nThe Nile, with his sixteen children, is of this same class[244]. The\nchild that reaches the ears of corn, and the fruits, in his Cornu, is\nthe symbol of the highest fertility; but those that over-reach them are\nsigns of miscarrying seasons. Pliny explains the whole[245]. Egypt is at\nthe height of its fertility, when the Nile rises sixteen feet: but if\nit either falls short of, or exceeds that measure, it equally blasts\nthe land with unfruitfulness. Rossi, in his collection, neglected the\nchildren.\n\nSatyrical pictures belong also to this class: the Ass of Gabrias, for\ninstance[246], which imagines itself worshipped by the people, as they\nbow to the statue of Isis on its back. It is impossible to give a\nlivelier image of the pride of the Vulgar-Great.\n\nThe sublimer allegory might be supplied by the lower class, had it not\nmet with the same fate. We are, for instance, not acquainted with the\nfigure of Eloquence, or _Peitho_; or that of the Goddess of Comfort,\n_Parergon_, represented by Praxiteles, as Pausanias tells us[247].\nOblivion had an altar among the Romans[248], and perhaps a figure: as may\nalso be supposed of Chastity, whose altar is to be found on coins[249];\nand of Fear, to which Theseus offered sacrifices[250].\n\nHowever, the remains of ancient allegory are not yet worn out: there are\nstill many secret stores: the poets, and other monuments of antiquity,\nafford numbers of beautiful images. Those, who in our time, and that\nof our fathers, were busy in improving allegory, and in facilitating\nthe endeavours of the artists; those, I say, should reasonably have\nhad recourse to so rich and pure a fountain. But there was an epoch to\nappear, in which a shocking croud of pedants should, with downright\nmadness, conspire in an universal uproar against every the lead glimpse\nof good taste. Nature, in their eyes, was puerile, and ought to be\nfashioned: blockheads, both young and old, vied in painting devices and\nemblems, for the benefit of artists, philosophers, and divines; and woe\nto him who made a compliment, without dressing it up in an emblem!\nSymbols void of sense were illustrated with inscriptions, giving an\naccount of what they meant, and meant not: these are the treasures which\nare dug for, even in our times, and which, being then in high fashion,\nout-shone all antiquity had left.\n\nThe ancients, for instance, represented Munificence by a woman holding\na Cornucopia in one hand, and the table of the Roman Congiarium in the\nother[251]: an image which looked too parsimonious for modern liberality;\nanother therefore was contrived[252], with two horns; one of them\ninverted, the better to pour out its contents; an eagle, the meaning\nof which is too hard for me to guess at, was set upon her head; others\npainted her with a pot in each hand[253]. Eternity was, by the ancients,\ndrawn either sitting on a Globe, or rather Sphere[254], with a Hasta in\nher hand; or standing[255], with the Sphere in one hand, and the Hasta in\nthe other; or with the Sphere in her hand, and no Hasta; or else covered\nwith a floating Veil[256]. These are the images of Eternity on the coins\nof the Empress Faustina: but there was not gravity enough in them for\nthe modern artists. Eternity, so frightful to many, required a frightful\nimage[257]; a form female down to the breast, with Globes in each hand;\nthe rest of the Body a circling star-marked Snake turning into itself.\n\nProvidence very often has a Globe at her feet, and a Hasta in her left\nhand[258]. On a coin of the Emperor Pertinax[259], she stretches out both\nher hands, towards a Globe falling from the clouds. A female figure,\nwith two heads, seemed more expressive to the moderns[260].\n\nConstancy, on some of Claudius\u2019s coins[261], is either fitting or\nstanding, with a Helmet on her head, and a Hasta in her left hand; or\nwithout Helmet and Hasta, but always with a finger pointing to her face,\nas if closely debating some point. For distinction sake the moderns\njoined a couple of pillars[262].\n\nIt is very probable, that Ripa was often at a loss with his own figures.\nChastity, in his Iconology, holds in one hand a Whip[263], (a strange\nincitement to virtue) in the other a Sieve: The first inventor, perhaps,\nhinted at Tuccia the vestal; which Ripa not remembring, indulges the most\nabsurd whims, not worth repeating.\n\nBy thus contrasting ancient and modern allegory, I mean not to divert our\ntimes of their right of settling new allegories: but from the different\nmanners of thinking, I shall draw some rules, for those that are to tread\nthese paths.\n\nThe character of noble simplicity was the chief aim of the Greeks and\nRomans: of which Romeyn de Hooghe has given the very contrast. His book,\nin general, may very fitly be compared to the elm in Virgil\u2019s hell:\n\n          _Hanc sedem somnia vulgo_\n    _Vana tenere ferunt, foliisque sub omnibus h\u00e6rent._\n\n    \u00c6n. VI.\n\nThe distinctness of the ancient allegory was owing to the individuation\nof its images. Their rule, (if we except only a few of those\nabove-mentioned), was to avoid every ambiguity; a rule slightly observed\nby the moderns: the Hart, for instance, symbolizing[264] baptism,\nrevenge, remorse, and flattery; the Cedar, a preacher, worldly vanities,\na scholar, and a woman dying in the pangs of child-birth.\n\nThat simplicity and distinctness were always accompanied by a certain\ndecency. A hog signifying, among the Egyptians, a scrutator of\nmysteries[265], together with all the swine of C\u00e6sar Ripa and some of the\nmoderns, would have been thought, by the Greeks, too indecent a symbol of\nany thing whatever: save only where that animal made part of the arms of\na place, as it appears to be on the Eleusinian coins[266].\n\nThe last rule of the ancients was to beware of signs too near a-kin to\nthe thing signified. Let the young allegorist observe these rules, and\nstudy them, jointly with mythology, and the remotest history.\n\nIndeed some modern allegories, (if those ought to be called modern that\nare entirely in the taste of antiquity), may perhaps be compared with\nthe sublimer class of the ancient.\n\nTwo brothers of the Barbarigo-family, immediately succeeding each\nother[267], in the dignity of Doge of Venice, are allegorized by Castor\nand Pollux[268]; one of whom, as the fable tells us, gave the other part\nof that immortality which Jupiter had conferred on him alone. Pollux,\nin the allegory, presents his brother, represented by a skull, with a\ncircling snake, as the symbol of eternity; on the reverie of a fictitious\ncoin, beneath the described figures, there drops a broken branch from a\ntree, with the Virgilian inscription,\n\n    _Primo avulso non deficit alter._\n\nAnother idea on one of Lewis XIVth\u2019s coins, is as worthy of notice;\nbeing struck[269] on occasion of the Duke of Lorrain\u2019s quiting his\ndominions, after the surrender of Marsal, for having betrayed both the\nFrench and Austrian courts. The Duke is Proteus overcome by the arts\nof Menelaus, and bound, after having, in vain, tried all his different\nforms. At a distance the conquered citadel is to be seen, and the year of\nits surrender marked in the inscription. There was no occasion for the\nsuperfluous epigraph: _Protei Artes delus\u00e6_.\n\nPatience, or rather a longing earnest desire[270], represented by a\nfemale figure, with folded hands, gazing on a watch, is a very good image\nof the lower class. It must indeed be owned, that the inventors of the\nmost picturesque allegories have contented themselves with the remains of\nantiquity; none having been authorised to establish images of their own\nfancy, for the general imitation of the artists. Neither has any attempt\nof latter times deferred the honour: for in the whole Iconology of Ripa,\nof two or three that are tolerable ones,\n\n    _Nantes in gurgite vasto_;\n\nan Ethiopian washing himself, as an allusion to labour lost[271], is\nperhaps the best. There are indeed images, and useful hints, dispersed in\nsome books of greater note, (as for instance, The Temple of Stupidity in\nthe Spectator[272],) which ought to be collected, and made more general.\nThus, were the treasures of science joined to those of art, the time\nmight come, when a painter would be able to represent an ode, as well as\na tragedy.\n\nI shall myself submit to the publick some images: for rules instruct,\nbut examples still more. Friendship, I find every where pitifully\nrepresented, and its emblems are not worth mentioning: their flying\nscribbled labels shew us the depth of their inventors.\n\nThis noblest of human virtues I would paint in the figures of those\ntwo immortal friends of heroic times, Theseus and Pirithous. The head\nof the former is said to be on gems[273]: he likewise appears with the\nclub[274] won from Periphetes, a son of Vulcan, on a gem of Philemon.\nTheseus consequently might be drawn with some resemblance. Friendship,\nat the brink of danger, might be taken from the idea of an old picture\nat Delphos, as described by Pausanias[275]. Theseus was painted in the\naction of defending himself and his friend against the Thesprotians,\nwith his own sword in one hand, and another drawn from the side of his\nfriend, in the other. The beginning of their friendship, as described by\nPlutarch[276], might also be an image of that idea. I am astonished not\nto have met, among the emblems of the great men of the Barbarigo-family,\nwith an image of a good man and eternal friend. Such was Nicolas\nBarbarigo, who contracted with Marco Trivisano a friendship worthy of\nimmortality;\n\n    _Monumentum \u00e6re perennius_:\n\na little rare treatise alone has preserved their memory[277].\n\nA little hint of Plutarch\u2019s might furnish an image of Ambition: he\nmentions[278] the sacrifices of Honour, as being performed bareheaded,\nwhereas all other sacrifices, save only those of Saturn[279], were\noffered with covered heads. This custom he believes to have taken its\nrise from the usual salutation in society; though it may as well be _vice\nversa_: perhaps it sprung from the Pelasgian rites[280], which were\nperformed bareheaded. Honour is likewise represented by a female figure,\ncrowned with laurels, a _Cornucopia_ and _Hasta_ in her hands[281].\nAccompanied by Virtue, a male figure with a helmet, she is to be found on\na coin of Vitellius[282]: and the heads of both on those of Gordian and\nGalien[283].\n\nPrayers might be personified from an idea of Homer. Ph\u0153nix, the tutor\nof Achilles, endeavouring to reconcile him to the Greeks, makes use of\nan allegory. \u201cKnow Achilles, says he, that prayers are the daughters\nof Zeus[284]; they are bent with kneeling; their faces sorrowful and\nwrinkled, with eyes lifted up to heaven. They follow Ate; who, with a\nbold and haughty mien marches on, and, light of foot as she is, runs over\nall the world, to seize and torment mankind; for ever endeavouring to\nescape the Prayers, who incessantly press upon her footsteps, in order\nto heal those whom she hath hurt. Whoever honours these daughters of\nZeus, on their approach, may obtain much good from them; but meeting with\nrepulse, they pray their fire to punish by Ate the hard-hearted wretch.\u201d\n\nThe following well-known old fable might also furnish a new image.\nSalmacis, and the youth beloved by her, were changed to a fountain,\nunmanning to such a degree, that\n\n    _Quisquis in hos fontes vir venerit, exeat inde_\n    _Semivir: & tactis subito mollescat in undis,_\n\n    Ovid. Metam. L. IV.\n\nThe fountain was near Halicarnassus in Caria. Vitruvius[285] thought he\nhad discovered the truth of that fiction: some inhabitants of Argos and\nTr\u0153zene, says he, going thither with a mind to settle, dispossessed the\nCarians and Leleges; who, sheltering themselves among the mountains,\nbegan to harass the Greeks with their excursions: but one of the\ninhabitants having discovered some particular qualities in that fountain,\nerected a building near it, for the convenience of those who had a mind\nto make use of its water. Greeks and Barbarians mingled there; and these\nat length, accustomed to the Greek civility, lost their savageness, and\nwere insensibly moulded into another nature. The fable itself is well\nknown to the artists: but the narrative of Vitruvius might instruct them\nhow to draw the allegory of a people taught humanity and civilised, like\nthe Russians by Peter the First. The fable of Orpheus might serve the\nsame purpose. Expression only must decide the choice.\n\nSupposing the above general observations upon allegory insufficient to\nevince its necessity in painting, the examples will at least demonstrate,\nthat painting reaches beyond the senses.\n\nThe two chief performances in allegorical painting, mentioned in my\ntreatise, viz. the Luxemburg gallery, and the cupola of the Imperial\nLibrary at Vienna, may shew how poetical, how happy an use their authors\nmade of allegory.\n\nRubens proposing to paint Henry IV. as a humane victor, with lenity and\ngoodness prevailing, even in the punishment of unnatural rebels, and\ntreacherous banditti, represents him as Jupiter ordering the gods to\noverthrow and punish the vices: Apollo and Minerva let fly their darts\nupon them, and the vices, hideous monsters, in a tumultuous uproar tumble\nover each other: Mars, entering in a fury, threatens total destruction;\nbut Venus, image of celestial love, gently lays hold of his arm:\u2014you\nfancy you hear her blandishing petition to the _mailed_ god: \u201crage not\nwith cruel revenge against the vices\u2014they are punished.\u201d\n\nThe whole performance of Daniel Gran[286] is an allegory, relative to the\nImperial Library, and all its figures are as the branches of one single\ntree. \u2019Tis a painted Epopee, not beginning from the eggs of Leda; but, as\nHomer chiefly rehearses the anger of Achilles, this immortalizes only the\nEmperor\u2019s care of the sciences. The preparations for the building of the\nlibrary are represented in the following manner:\n\nImperial majesty appears as a lady fitting, her head sumptuously\ndressed, and on her breast a golden heart, as a symbol of the Emperor\u2019s\ngenerosity. With her sceptre the gives the summons to the builders;\nat her feet sits a genius with an angle, palette, and chissel; another\nhovers over her with the figures of the Graces, as symbols of that good\ntaste which prevailed in the whole. Next to the chief figure sits general\nLiberality, with a purse in her hand; below her a genius, with the\ntable of the Roman Congiarius, and behind her the Austrian Liberality,\nher mantle embroidered with larks. Several Genii gather the treasures\nthat flow from her Cornucopia, in order to distribute them among the\nvotaries of the arts and sciences, chiefly those, whose good offices to\nthe library had entitled them to regard. The execution of the Imperial\norders personified, directs her face to the commanding figure, and three\nchildren present the model of the house. Next her an old man, the image\nof Experience, measures on a table the plan of the building, a genius\nstanding beneath him with a plummet, as ready to begin. Next the old\nman sits Invention, with a statue of Isis in her right, and a book in\nher left hand, signifying, that Nature and Science are the fathers of\nInvention, the puzzling schemes of which are represented by a Sphinx\nlying before her.\n\nThis performance was compared to the great platfond of Le Moine at\nVersailles, with an eye to the newest productions of France and Germany\nalone: for the great gallery of the same palace, painted by Charles le\nBrun, is, without doubt, the sublimest performance of poetick painting,\nsince the time of Rubens; and being possessed of this, as well as of\nthe gallery of Luxemburg, France may boast of the two most learned\nallegorical performances.\n\nThe gallery of Le Brun contains the history of Louis XIV. from the\nPyren\u00e6an peace, to that of Nimeguen, in nine large, and eighteen\nsmaller pieces: that in which the King determines war against Holland,\ncontains, in itself alone, an ingenious and sublime application of almost\nthe whole mythology[287]: its beauties are too exuberant for this\ntreatise; let the artist\u2019s ideas be judged only by two of the smaller\ncompositions. He represents the famous passage over the Rhine: his hero\nsits in a chariot, a thunderbolt in his hand, and Hercules, the image of\nheroism, drives him through the midst of tempestuous waves. The figure\nrepresenting Spain is borne down by the current: the river god, aghast,\nlets fall his oar: the victories, approaching on rapid wings, present\nshields, marked with the names of the towns conquered after the passage.\nEuropa astonished beholds the scene.\n\nAnother represents the conclusion of the peace. Holland, though with-held\nby the Imperial Eagle, snatching her robe, runs to meet peace, descending\nfrom heaven, surrounded by the Genii of gaiety and pleasure, scattering\nflowers all around her. Vanity, crowned with peacocks feathers;\nendeavours to with-hold Spain and Germany from following their associate:\nbut perceiving the cavern where arms are forged for France and Holland,\nand hearing same threatening in the skies, they likewise follow her\nexample. Is not the former of these two performances comparable, in\nsublimity, to the Neptune of Homer, and the strides of his immortal\nhorses?\n\nBut let examples be never so striking, allegory will still have\nadversaries: they rose in times of old, against that of Homer himself.\nThere are people of too delicate a conscience, to bear truth and fiction\nin one piece: they are scandalized at a poor river-god in some sacred\nstory. Poussin met with their reproaches, for personifying the Nile\nin his Moses[288]. A still stronger party has declared against the\nobscurity of allegory; for which they censured, and still continue to\ncensure, Le Brun. But who is there so little experienced as not to know,\nthat perspicuity and obscurity depend often upon time and circumstances?\nWhen Phidias first added a tortoise[289] to his Venus, \u2019tis likely that\nfew were acquainted with his design in it, and bold was the artist who\nfirst dared to fetter her: time, however, made the meaning as clear\nas the figures themselves. Allegory, as Plato says[290] of poetry in\ngeneral, has something enigmatick in itself, and is not calculated for\nthe bulk of mankind. And should the painter, from the fear of being\nobscure, adapt his performance to the capacity of those, who look upon\na picture as upon a tumultuous mob, he might as well check every new\nand extraordinary idea. The design of the famous Fred. Barocci, in his\nMartyrdom of St. Vitalis, by drawing a little girl alluring a magpye\nwith a cherry, must have been very mysterious to many; the cherry[291]\nalluding to the season, in which that saint suffered.\n\nThe painting of the greater machines, and of the larger parts of publick\nbuildings, palaces, &c. ought to be allegorical. Grandeur is relative to\ngrandeur; and heroick actions are not to be sung in elegiack strains. But\nis every fiction allegorical in every place? The Venetian Doge might as\nwell pretend to enjoy his superiority in _Terra firma_. I am mistaken if\nthe Farnesian gallery is to be ranked among the allegorical performances.\nNevertheless Annibal, perhaps not having it in his power to choose his\nsubject, may have been too roughly used in my treatise: it is known that\nthe Duke of Orleans desired Coypel to paint in his gallery the history\nof \u00c6neas[292].\n\nThe Neptune of Rubens[293], in the gallery at Dresden, painted on purpose\nto adorn the magnificent entry of the Infant Ferdinand of Spain into\nAntwerp, as governor of the Netherlands, was there, on a triumphal arch,\nallegorical[294]. The god of the ocean frowning his waves into peace, was\na poetick image of the Princes escaping the storm, and arriving safe at\nGenoa. But now he is nothing more than the Neptune of Virgil.\n\nVasari, when pretending to find allegory in the Athenian school of\nRaphael[295], _viz._ a companion of philosophy and astronomy with\ntheology, seems to have required, and, by the common opinion of his time,\nto have been authorised to require something grand and above the vulgar,\nin the decorations of a grand apartment: though indeed there be nothing\nbut what is obvious at first look, and that is, a representation of the\nAthenian academy[296].\n\nBut in ancient times, there was no story in a temple, that was not,\nat the same time, allegorical; allegory being closely interwoven with\nmythology: the gods of Homer, says an ancient, are the most lively images\nof the different powers of the universe; shadows of elevated ideas: and\nthe gallantries of Jupiter and Juno, in the platfond of a temple of\nthat goddess at Samos, were looked on as such; air being represented by\nJupiter, and earth by Juno[297].\n\nHere I think it incumbent upon me to clear up what I have said concerning\nthe contradictions in the character of the Athenians, as represented\nby Parrhasius. This you think an easy matter; the painter having done\nit either in the historical way, or in several pictures: which latter\nis absurd. Has not there been even a statue of that people, done by\nLeochares, as well as a temple[298]? The composition of the picture in\nquestion, has still eluded all probable conjectures[299]; and the help of\nallegory having been called in, has produced nothing but Tesoro\u2019s[300]\nghastly phantoms. This fatal picture of Parrhasius, I am afraid, will of\nitself be a perpetual instance of the superior skill of the ancients in\nallegory.\n\nWhat has been said already of allegory, in general, contains likewise\nwhat remarks may be made upon its being applied to decorations;\nnevertheless as you insist upon that point particularly, I shall lightly\nmention it too.\n\nThere are two chief laws in decoration, viz. to adorn suitably to\nthe nature of things and places, and with truth; and not to follow an\narbitrary fancy.\n\nThe first, as it concerns the artists in general, and dictates to them\nthe adjusting of things in such a manner, as to make them relative to\neach other, claims especially a strict propriety in decorations:\n\n    \u2014\u2014_Non ut placidis coeant immitia_\u2014\n\n    Hor.\n\nThe sacred shall not be mixed with the profane, nor the terrible with the\nsublime: this was the reason for rejecting the sheeps-heads[301], in the\nDoric Metopes, at the chapel of the palace of Luxemburg at Paris.\n\nThe second law excludes licentiousness; nay circumscribes the architect\nand decorator within much narrower limits than the painter; who sometimes\nmust, in spite of reason, subject his own fancy, and Greece, to fashion,\neven in history-pieces: but publick buildings, and such works as are made\nfor futurity, claim decorations that will outlast the whims of fashion;\nlike those that, by their dignity and superior excellence, bore down the\nattacks of many a century: otherwise they fade away, grow insipid and out\nof fashion, perhaps before the finishing of the very work to which they\nare added.\n\nThe former law directs the artist to allegory: the latter to the\nimitation of antiquity; and this concerns chiefly the smaller decorations.\n\nSuch I call those that make not up of themselves a whole, or those\nthat are additional to the larger ones. The ancients never applied\nshells, when not required by the fable; as in the case of Venus and the\nTritons; or by the place, as in the temples of Neptune: and lamps decked\nwith shells[302] are supposed to have made part of the implements of\nthose temples. For the same reason they may give lustre; and be very\nsignificant, in proper places; as in the festoons of the Stadthouse at\nAmsterdam[303].\n\nSheep and ox-heads stripped of their skin, so far from justifying a\npromiscuous use of shells, as the author seems inclined to think, are\nplain arguments to the contrary: for they not only were relative to\nthe ancient sacrifices, but were thought to be endowed with a power\nof averting lightning[304]; and Numa pretended to have been secretly\ninstructed about them by Jupiter[305]. Nor can the Corinthian capital\nserve for an instance of a seemingly absurd ornament, authorised and\nrendered fashionable by time alone: for it seems of an origin more\nnatural and reasonable than Vitruvius makes it; which is, however, an\nenquiry more adapted to a treatise on architecture. Pocock believed that\nthe Corinthian order had not much reputation in the time of Pericles, who\nbuilt a temple to Minerva: but he should have been reminded, that the\nDoric order belonged to the temples of that goddess, as Vitruvius informs\nus[306].\n\nThese decorations ought to be treated like architecture in general, which\nowes its grandeur to simplicity, to a system of few parts, which being\nnot complex themselves, branch out into grace and splendour. Remember\nhere the channelled pillars of the temple of Jupiter, at Agrigentum,\n(Girgenti now) which were large enough to contain, in one single gutter,\na man at full length[307]. In the same manner these decorations must not\nonly be few, but those must likewise consist of few parts, which are to\nappear with an air of grandeur and ease.\n\nThe first law (to return to allegory) might be lengthened out into many a\nsubaltern rule: but the nature of things and circumstances is, and ever\nmust be, the artist\u2019s first aim; as for examples, refutation promises\nrather more instruction than authority.\n\nArion riding on his dolphin, as unmeaningly represented upon a\nSopra-porta, in a new treatise on architecture[308], though a significant\nimage in the apartments of a French Dauphin, would be a very poor one\nin any place where Philanthropy, or the protection of artists like him,\ncould not immediately be hinted at. On the contrary, he would even to\nthis day, though without his lyre, be an ornament to any publick building\nat Tarentum, because the ancient Tarentines, stamped on their coins the\nimage of Taras, one of the sons of Neptune, riding on a dolphin, on a\nsupposition of his being their first founder.\n\nThe allegorical decorations of a building, raised by the contributions\nof a whole nation, I mean the Duke of Marlborough\u2019s palace at Blenheim,\nare absurd: enormous lions of massy stone, above two portals, tearing to\npieces a little cock[309]. The hint sprung from a poor pun.\n\nNor can it be denied that antiquity furnishes some ideas seemingly\nanalogous to this: as for instance, the lioness on the tomb of Le\u00e6na, the\nmistress of Aristogiton, raised in honour of her constancy amidst the\ntorments applied by the tyrant, in order to extort from her a confession\nof the conspirators against him. But from this, I am afraid, nothing can\narise in behalf of the above pitiful decoration: that mistress of the\nmartyr of liberty having been a notorious woman, and whose name could\nnot decently stand a publick trial. Of the same nature are the lizards\nand frogs on a temple[310], alluding to the names of the two architects,\nSaurus and Batrachus[311]: the above-mentioned lioness having no tongue,\nmade the allegory still more expressive. The lioness on the tomb of the\nfamous Lais[312], holding with her fore-paws a ram, as a symbol of her\nmanners[313], was perhaps an imitation of the former. The lion was, in\ngeneral, set upon the tombs of the brave.\n\nIt is not indeed to be pretended that every ornament and image of the\nancient vases, tools, &c. should be allegorical; and to explain many\nof them, in that way, would be equally difficult and conjectural. I am\nnot bold enough to maintain, that an earthen lamp[314], in the shape\nof an ox\u2019s-head, means a perpetual remembrance of useful labours, on\naccount of the perpetuity of the fire; nor to decypher here a mysterious\nsacrifice to Pluto and Proserpine[315]. But the image of a Trojan Prince,\ncarried off by Jupiter, to be his favourite, was of great and honourable\nsignification in the mantle of a Trojan. Birds pecking grapes seem as\nsuitable to an urn, as the young Bacchus brought by Mercury to be nursed\nby Leucothea, on a large marble vase of the Athenian Salpion[316]. The\ngrapes may be a symbol of the pleasures the deceased enjoy in Elysium:\nthe pleasures of hereafter being commonly supposed to be such; as the\ndeceased chiefly delighted in when alive. A bird, I need not say, was the\nimage of the soul. A Sphinx, on a cup sacred to Bacchus, is supposed to\nbe an allusion to the adventures of Oedipus at Thebes, Bacchus\u2019s birth\nplace[317]; as a Lizard on a cup of Mentor, may hint at the possessor,\nwhose name perhaps was Saurus.\n\nThere is some reason to search for allegory, in most of the ancient\nperformances, when we consider, that they even built allegorically.\nSuch an allusive building was a gallery at Olympia[318], sacred to the\nseven liberal arts, and re-echoing seven times a poem read aloud there.\nA temple of Mercury, supported, instead of pillars, by Herms, or, as\nwe now spell, Terms, on a coin of Aurelian[319], is of the same kind:\nthere is on its front a dog, a cock, and a tongue; figures that want no\nexplication.\n\nYet the temple of Virtue and Honour, built by Marcellus, was still more\nlearnedly executed: having consecrated his Sicilian spoils to that\npurpose, he was disappointed by the priests, whom he first consulted\non that design; who told him, that no single temple could admit of\ntwo divinities. Marcellus therefore ordered two temples to be built,\nadjoining to each other, in such a manner that whoever would be admitted\nto that of Honour must pass through that of Virtue[320]; thus publickly\nindicating, that virtue alone leads to true honour: this temple was near\nthe Porta Capena[321]. And here I cannot help remembering those hollow\nstatues of ugly satyrs[322], which, when opened, were found replete with\nlittle figures of the graces, to teach, that no judgment is to be formed\nfrom outward appearances, and that a fair mind makes amends for a homely\nbody.\n\nPerhaps, Sir, some of your objections may have been omitted: if so, it\nwas against my will\u2014\u2014and at this instant, I remember one concerning the\nGreek art of changing blue eyes to black ones. Dioscorides is the only\nwriter that mentions it[323]. Attempts of this kind have been made in our\ndays: a certain Silesian countess was the favourite beauty of the age,\nand universally acknowledged to be perfect, had it not been for her blue\neyes, which some of her admirers wished were black. The lady, informed of\nthe wishes of her adorers, by repeated endeavours overcame nature; her\neyes became black,\u2014and she blind.\n\nI am not satisfied with myself, nor perhaps have given you satisfaction:\nbut the art is inexhaustible, and all cannot be written. I only wanted\nto amuse myself agreeably at my leisure hours; and the conversation of\nmy friend FREDERIC OESER, a true imitator of Aristides, the painter of\nthe soul, was not a little favourable to my purpose: the name of which\nworthy friend and artist[324] shall spread a lustre over the end of my\ntreatise.\n\n\n\n\n    INSTRUCTIONS\n    FOR THE\n    CONNOISSEUR.\n\n\n    \u2014\u2014_Non, si quid turbida ROMA_\n    _Elevet, accedas: examenve improbum in illa_\n    _Castiges trutina: nec te qu\u00e6siveris extra._\n    _Nam Rom\u00e6 est Quis non?_\u2014\u2014\n\nYou call yourself a _Connoisseur_, and the first thing you gaze at,\nin considering works of art, is the workmanship, the delicacy of the\npencilling, or the polish given by the chissel.\u2014\u2014It was the idea however,\nits grandeur or meanness, its dignity, fitness, or unfitness, that ought\nfirst to have been examined: for industry and talents are independent of\neach other. A piece of painting or sculpture cannot, merely on account\nof its having been laboured, claim more merit than a book of the same\nsort. To work curiously, and with unnecessary refinements, is as little\nthe mark of a great artist, as to write learnedly is that of a great\nauthor. An image anxiously finished, in every minute trifle, may be fitly\ncompared to a treatise crammed with quotations of books, that perhaps\nwere never read. Remember this, and you will not be amazed at the laurel\nleaves of _Bernini_\u2019s Apollo and Daphne, nor at the net held by _Adams_\u2019s\nstatue of water at Potzdam: you will only be convinced that workmanship\nis not the standard which distinguishes the antique from the modern.\n\nBe attentive to discover whether an artist had ideas of his own, or only\ncopied those of others; whether he knew the chief aim of all art, Beauty,\nor blundered through the dirt of vulgar forms; whether he performed like\na man, or played only like a child.\n\nBooks may be written, and works of art executed, at a very small expence\nof ideas. A painter may mechanically paint a Madonna, and please; and a\nprofessor, in the same manner, may write Metaphysics to the admiration of\na thousand students. But would you know whether an artist deserves his\nname, let him invent, let him do the same thing repeatedly: for as one\nfeature, may modify a mien, so, by changing the attitude of one limb, the\nartist may give a new hint towards a characteristic distinction of two\nfigures, in other respects exactly the same, and prove himself a man.\nPlato, in _Raphael_\u2019s Athenian school, but slightly moves his finger:\nyet he means enough, and infinitely more than all _Zucchari_\u2019s meteors.\nFor as it requires more ability to say much in a few words, than to do\nthe contrary; and as good sense delights rather in things than shews, it\nfollows, that one single figure may be the theatre of all an artist\u2019s\nskill: though, by all that is stale and trivial! the bulk of painters\nwould think it as tyrannical to be sometimes confined to two or three\nfigures, in great only, as the ephemeral writers of this age would grin\nat the proposal of beginning the world with their own private stock, all\npublic hobby-horses laid aside: for fine cloaths make the beau. \u2019Tis\nhence that most young artists,\n\n    _Enfranchis\u2019d from their tutor\u2019s care_,\n\nchoose rather to make their entrance with some perplexed composition,\nthan with one figure strongly fancied and masterly executed. But let\nhim, who, content to please the few, wants not to earn either bread or\napplause from a gaping mob, let him remember that the management of a\n\u201c_little_\u201d more or less really distinguishes artist from artist; that the\ntruly sensible produces a multiplicity, as well as quickness and delicacy\nof feelings, whilst the dashing quack tickles only feeble senses and\ncallous organs; that he may consequently be great in single figures, in,\nthe smallest compositions, and new and various in repeating things the\nmost trite. Here I speak out of the mouth of the ancients: this, their\nworks teach: and both our writers and painters would come nearer them,\ndid not the one busy themselves with their words only, the other with\ntheir proportions.\n\nIn the face of Apollo pride exerts itself chiefly in the chin and nether\nlip; anger in the nostrils; and contempt in the opening mouth; the\ngraces inhabit the rest of his divine, head, and unruffled beauty, like\nthe sun, streams athwart the passions. In Laocoon you see bodily pains,\nand indignation at undeserved sufferings, twist the nose, and paternal\nsympathy dim the eye-balls. Strokes like these are, as in Homer, a whole\nidea in one word; he only finds them who is able to understand them. Take\nit for certain, that the ancients aimed at expressing much in little,\n\n    _Their ore was rich, and seven times purg\u2019d of lead_:\n\nwhereas most moderns, like tradesmen in distress, hang out all their\nwares at once. Homer, by raising all the gods from their seats, on\nApollo\u2019s appearing amongst them[325], gives a sublimer idea than all the\nlearning of Callimachus could furnish. If ever a prejudice may be of\nuse, \u2019tis here; hope largely from the ancient works in approaching them,\nnor fear disappointments; but examine, peruse, with cool sedateness and\nsilenced passions, lest your disturbed brain find Xenophon flat and Niobe\ninsipid.\n\nTo original ideas, we oppose copied, not imitated ones. Copying we\ncall the slavish crawling of the hand and eyes, after a certain model:\nwhereas reasonable imitation just takes the hint, in order to work by\nitself. _Domenichino_, the painter of Tenderness, imitated the heads of\nthe pretended Alexander at Florence, and of the Niobe at Rome[326]; but\naltered them like a master. On gems and coins you may find many a figure\nof _Poussin_\u2019s: his Salomon is the Macedonian Jupiter: but whatever his\nimitation produced, differs from the first idea, as the blossoms of a\ntransplanted tree differ from those that sprung in its native soil.\n\nAnother method of copying is, to compile a Madonna from _Maratta_; a S.\nJoseph from _Barocci_; other figures from other masters, and lump them\ntogether in order to make a whole. Many such altar-pieces you may find,\neven at Rome; and such a painter was the late celebrated _Masucci_ of\nthat city.\u2014\u2014Copying I call, moreover, the following a certain form,\nwithout the least consciousness of one\u2019s being a blockhead. Such was he\nwho, by the command of a certain Prince, painted the nuptials of Psyche,\nor, if you will, the Queen of Sheba:\u2014\u2019twas a pity there was no other\nPsyche to be found, but that dangerous one of _Raphael_. Most of the late\ngreat statues of the saints, in St. Peter\u2019s at Rome, are of the same\nstuff\u2014the block at 500 Roman crowns from the quarry.\n\nThe second characteristic of works of art is Beauty. The highest object\nof meditation for man is man, and for the artist there is none above his\nown frame. \u2019Tis by moving your senses that he reaches your soul: and\nhence the analysis of the bodily system has no less difficulties for\nhim, than that of the human mind for the philosopher. I do not mean the\nanatomy of the muscles, vessels, bones, and their different forms and\nsituations; nor the relative measure of the whole to its parts, and _vice\nversa_: for the knife, exercise, and patience, may teach you all these.\nI mean the analysis of an attribute, essential to man, but fluctuating\nwith his frame, allowed by all, misconstrued by many, known by few:\u2014the\nanalysis of beauty, which no definition can explain, to him whom heaven\nhath denied a soul for it. Beauty consists in the harmony of the various\nparts of an individual. This is the philosopher\u2019s stone, which all\nartists must search for, though a few only find it: \u2019tis nonsense to\nhim, who could not have formed the idea out of himself. The line which\nbeauty describes is elliptical, both uniform and various: \u2019tis not to be\ndescribed by a circle, and from every point changes its direction. All\nthis is easily said; but to apply it\u2014_there is the rub_. \u2019Tis not in the\npower of Algebra to determine which line, more or less elliptic, forms\nthe divers parts of the system into beauty\u2014but the ancients knew it; I\nattest their works, from the gods down to their vases. The human form\nallows of no circle, nor has any antique vase its profile semicircular.\n\nAfter this, should any one desire me to assist him more sensibly in his\ninquiries concerning beauty, by setting down some rules (a hard task), I\nwould take them from the antique models, and in want of these, from the\nmost beautiful people I could meet with at the place where I lived. But\nto instruct, I would do it in the negative way; of which I shall give\nsome instances, confining myself however to the face.\n\nThe form of real beauty has no abrupt or broken parts. The ancients made\nthis principle the basis of their youthful profile; which is neither\nlinear nor whimsical, though seldom to be met with in nature: the\ngrowth, at least, of climates more indulgent than ours. It consists in\nthe soft coalescence of the brow with the nose. This uniting line so\nindispensably accompanies beauty, that a person wanting it may appear\nhandsome full-faced; but mean, nay even ugly, when taken in profile.\n_Bernini_, that destroyer of art, despised this line, when legislator of\ntaste, as not finding it in common nature, his only model; and therein\nwas followed by all his school. From this same principle it necessarily\nfollows, that neither chin nor cheeks, deep-marked with dimples, can\nbe consistent with true beauty. Hence the face of the Medicean Venus\nis to be degraded from the first rank. Her face, I dare say, was taken\nfrom some celebrated fair one, contemporary with the artist. Two other\nVenuses, in the garden behind the Farnese, are manifestly portraits.\n\nThe form of real beauty has neither the projected parts obtuse, nor\nthe vaulted ones sharp. The eye-bone is magnificently raised, the chin\nthoroughly vaulted. Thus the best ancients drew: though, when taste\ndeclined amongst them, and the arts were trampled on in modern times,\nthese parts changed too: then the eye-bone became roundish and obtusely\ndull, and the chin mincingly pretty. Hence we may safely affirm, that\nwhat they call Antinous, in the Belvedere, whose eye-bone is rather\nobtuse, cannot be a work of the highest antiquity, any more than the\nVenus.\n\nAs these remarks are general, they likewise concern the features of\nthe face, the form only. There is another charm, that gives expression\nand life to forms, which we call Grace; and we shall give some loose\nreflexions on it separately, leaving it to others to give us systems.\n\nThe figure of a man is as susceptible of beauty as that of a youth:\nbut as a various one, not the various alone, is the Gordian knot, it\nfollows, that a youthful figure, drawn at large, and in the highest\npossible degree of beauty, is, of all problems that can be proposed to\nthe designer, the most difficult. Every one may convince himself of this:\ntake the most beautiful face in modern painting, and it will go hard,\nbut you shall know a still more beautiful one in nature.\u2014\u2014I speak thus,\nafter having considered the treasures of Rome and Florence.\n\nIf ever an artist was endowed with beauty, and deep innate feelings for\nit; if ever one was versed in the taste and spirit of the ancients, \u2019twas\ncertainly _Raphael_: yet are his beauties inferior to the most beautiful\nnature. I know persons more beautiful than his unequalled Madonna, in\nthe _Palazzo Petti_ at Florence, or the Alcibiades in his academy. The\nMadonna in the Christmas-night of _Corregio_, (a piece justly celebrated\nfor its chiar\u2019-oscuro) is no sublime idea; still less so is that of\n_Maratta_ at Dresden: _Titian_\u2019s celebrated Venus[327] in the Tribuna\nat Florence is common nature. The little heads of _Albano_ have an air\nof beauty; but it is a different thing to express beauty in little, and\nin great. To have the theory of navigation, and to guide a ship through\nthe ocean, are two things. _Poussin_, who had studied antiquity more than\nhis predecessors, knew perfectly well what his shoulders could bear, and\nnever ventured into the great.\n\nThe Greeks alone seem to have thrown forth beauty, as a potter makes his\npot. The heads on all the coins of their Free-states have forms above\nnature, which they owe to the line that forms their profile. Would it not\nbe easy to hit that line? Yet have all the numismatic compilers deviated\nfrom it. Might not _Raphael_, who complained of the scarcity of beauty,\nmight not he have recurred to the coins of Syracuse, as the best statues,\nLaocoon alone excepted, were not yet discovered?\n\nFarther than those coins no mortal idea _can_ go. I wish my reader\nan opportunity of seeing the beautiful head of a genius in the Villa\nBorghese, and those images of unparalleled beauty, Niobe and her\ndaughters. On the western side of the Alps he must be contented with gems\nand pastes. Two of the most beautiful youthful heads are a Minerva of\nAspasius, now at Vienna, and a young Hercules in the Museum of the late\nBaron Stosch, at Florence.\n\nBut let no man, who has not formed his taste upon antiquity, take it into\nhis head to act the connoisseur of beauty: his ideas must be a parcel\nof whims. Of modern beauties I know none that could vie with the Greek\nfemale dancer of Mr. _Mengs_, big as life, painted in _Crayons_ on wood,\nfor the Marquis Croimare at Paris, or with his Apollo amidst the muses,\nin the Villa Albano, to whom that of _Guido_ in the Aurora, compared, is\nbut a mortal.\n\nAll the modern copies of ancient gems give us another proof of the\ndecisive authority of beauty in criticisms on works of art. _Natter_ has\ndared to copy that head of Minerva mentioned above, in the same size\nand smaller, but fell short. The nose is a hair too big, the chin too\nflat, and the mouth mean. And this is the case of modern imitators in\ngeneral. What can we hope then of self-fancied beauties? Conclude not,\nhowever, from this, against the possibility of a perfect imitation of\nantique heads: \u2019tis enough to say, that it has not yet existed: \u2019twas\nprobably the fault of the imitators themselves. _Natter_\u2019s treatise on\nancient gems is rather shallow; and what he wrought and wrote, even on\nthat single branch of engraving, for which he was chiefly celebrated, has\nneither the strength nor the ease of genius.\n\nTo this consciousness of inferiority we owe the scarcity of modern\nsupposititious gems and coins. Any man of taste may, upon comparison,\ndistinguish even the best modern coin from the antique original.\u2014I speak\nof the best antiques: for as to the lower Imperial coins, where the cheat\nwas easier, the artists have been liberal enough. _Padoano_\u2019s stamps, for\ncopying antique coins, are in the Barberini Collection at Rome, and those\nof one _Michel_, a Frenchman, and false coiner in taste, at Florence, in\nthat of the late Baron Stosch.\n\nThe third characteristic of works of art is Execution; or, the sketch\nbeing made, the method of finishing. And even here we commend good sense\nabove industry. As in judging of styles, we distinguish the good writer\nby the clearness, fluency, and nervousness of his diction; so in works\nof art, we discover the master by the manly strength, freedom, and\nsteadiness of his hand. The august contour, and easiness of mien, in the\nfigures of Christ, St. Peter, and the other apostles, on the right side\nof the Transfiguration, speak the classic hand of _Raphael_, as strongly\nas the smooth, anxious nicety of some of _Julio Romano_\u2019s figures, on the\nleft, the more wavering one of the disciple.\n\nNever admire either the marble\u2019s radiant polish, or the picture\u2019s glossy\nsurface. For that the journeyman sweated; for this the painter vegetated\nonly. _Bernini_\u2019s Apollo is as polished as HE in the Belvedere; and there\nis much more labour hid in one of _Trevisani_\u2019s Madonnas, than in that of\n_Corregio_. Whenever trusty arms and laborious industry prevail, we defy\nall the ancients. We are not their inferiors even in managing porphyry,\nthough a mob of scriblers, with _Clarencas_ in their rear-guard, deny it.\n\nNor (whatever _Maffei_ thinks[328],) did the ancients know a peculiar\nmethod of giving a nicer polish to the figures of their concave gems\n(_Intagli_.) Our artists polish as nicely: but statues and gems may be\ndetestable, for all their polish, as a face may be ugly, with the softest\nskin.\n\nThis however is not meant to blame a statue for its polish, as it is\nconducive to beauty: though Laocoon informs us, that the ancients knew\nthe secret of finishing statues, merely with the chissel. Nor does the\ncleanness of the pencil, on a picture, want its merit: yet it ought to\nbe distinguished from enamelled tints. A barked statue, and a bristly\npicture are alike absurd. Sketch with fire, and execute with phlegm. We\nblame workmanship only as it claims the first rank; as in the marbles _\u00e0\nla Bernini_, and the linnen of _Scybold_ and _Denner_.\n\nFriend, these instructions may be of use. For as the bulk of mankind\namuse themselves with the shells of things only, your eye may be\ncaptivated by polish and glare, as they are the most obvious; to put\nyou on your guard against which, is leading you the first step to true\nknowledge. For daily observation, during several years, in Italy, has\ntaught me how lamentably most young travellers are duped by a set of\nblind leaders. To see them skip about in the temple of art and genius,\nall quite sober and cool, puts me in mind of a swarm of new-fledged\ngrashoppers wantoning in the spring.\n\n\n\n\n    ON\n    GRACE.\n\n\n    \u2014\u2014\u03a7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u1f31\u03bc\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf \u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03c9\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03c6\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd.\n\nGrace is the harmony of agent and action. It is a general idea: for\nwhatever reasonably pleases in things and actions is gracious. Grace is\na gift of heaven; though not like beauty, which must be born with the\npossessor: whereas nature gives only the dawn, the capability of this.\nEducation and reflection form it by degrees, and custom may give it the\nsanction of nature. As water,\n\n    _That least of foreign principles partakes,_\n    _Is best:_\n\nSo Grace is perfect when most simple, when freest from finery,\nconstraint, and affected wit. Yet always to trace nature through the\nvast realms of pleasure, or through all the windings of characters,\nand circumstances infinitely various, seems to require too pure and\ncandid a taste for this age, cloyed with pleasure, in its judgments\neither partial, local, capricious, or incompetent. Then let it suffice\nto say, that Grace can never live where the passions rave; that beauty\nand tranquillity of soul are the centre of its powers. By this Cleopatra\nsubdued C\u00e6sar; Anthony slighted Octavia and the world for this; it\nbreathes through every line of Xenophon; Thucydides, it seems, disdained\nits charms; to Grace Apelles and Corregio owe immortality; but Michael\nAngelo was blind to it; though all the remains of ancient art, even those\nof but middling merit, might have satisfied him, that Grace alone places\nthem above the reach of modern skill.\n\nThe criticisms on Grace in nature, and on its imitation by art, seem to\ndiffer: for many are not shocked at those faults in the latter, that\ncertainly would incur their displeasure in the former. This diversity\nof feelings lies either in imitation itself, which perhaps affects the\nmore the less it is akin to the thing imitated; or in the senses being\nlittle exercised, and in the want of attention, and of clear ideas of\nthe objects in question. But let us not from hence infer that Grace is\nwholly fictitious: the human mind advances by degrees; nor are youth, the\nprejudices of education, boiling passions, and their train of phantoms,\nthe standard of its real delight\u2014remove some of these, and it admires\nwhat it loathed, and spurns what it doted on. Myriads, you say, the bulk\nof mankind, have not even the least notion of Grace\u2014but what do they know\nof beauty, taste, generosity, or all the higher luxuries of the soul?\nThese flowers of the human mind were not intended for universal growth,\nthough their seeds lie in every breast.\n\nGrace, in works of art, concerns the human figure only; it modifies the\n_attitude_ and _countenance_, _dress_ and _drapery_. And here I must\nobserve, that the following remarks do not extend to the comic part of\nart.\n\nThe attitude and gestures of antique figures are such as those have, who,\nconscious of merit, claim attention as their due, when appearing among\nmen of sense. Their motions always shew the motive; clear, pure blood,\nand settled spirits; nor does it signify whether they stand, sit, or lie;\nthe attitudes of Bacchanals only are violent, and ought to be so.\n\nIn quiet situations, when one leg alone supports the other which is free,\nthis recedes only as far as nature requires for putting the figure out\nof its perpendicular. Nay, in the _Fauni_, the foot has been observed to\nhave an inflected direction, as a token of savage, regardless nature. To\nthe modern artists a quiet attitude seemed insipid and spiritless, and\ntherefore they drag the leg at rest forwards, and, to make the attitude\nideal, remove part of the body\u2019s weight from the supporting leg, wring\nthe trunk out of its centre, and turn the head, like that of a person\nsuddenly dazzled with lightning. Those to whom this is not clear, may\nplease to recollect some stage-knight, or a conceited young Frenchman.\nWhere room allowed not of such an attitude, they, lest unhappily the leg\nthat has nothing to do might be unemployed, put something elevated under\nits foot, as if it were like that of a man who could not speak without\nsetting his foot on a stool, or stand without having a stone purposely\nput under it. The ancients took such care of appearances, that you will\nhardly find a figure with crossed legs, if not a Bacchus, Paris, or\nNireus; and in these they mean to express effeminate indolence.\n\nIn the countenances of antique figures, joy bursts not into laughter;\n\u2019tis only the representation of inward pleasure. Through the face of\na Bacchanal peeps only the dawn of luxury. In sorrow and anguish they\nresemble the sea, whose bottom is calm, whilst the surface raves. Even\nin the utmost pangs of nature, Niobe continues still the heroine, who\ndisdained yielding to Latona. The ancients seem to have taken advantage\nof that situation of the soul, in which, struck dumb by an immensity\nof pains, she borders upon insensibility; to express, as it were,\ncharacters, independent of particular actions; and to avoid scenes too\nterrifying, too passionate, sometimes to paint the dignity of minds\nsubduing grief.\n\nThose of the moderns, that either were ignorant of antiquity, or\nneglected to enquire into Grace in nature, have expressed, not only what\nnature feels, but likewise what she feels not. A Venus at Potzdam, by\n_Pigal_[329], is represented in a sentiment which forces the liquor to\nflow out at both sides of her mouth; seemingly gasping for breath; for\nshe was intended to pant with lust: yet, by all that\u2019s desperate! was\nthis very Pigal several years entertained at Rome to study the antique.\nA _Carita_ of _Bernini_, on one of the papal monuments in St. Peter\u2019s,\nought, you\u2019ll think, to look upon her children with benevolence and\nmaternal fondness; but her face is all a contradiction to this: for the\nartist, instead of real graces, applied to her his nostrum, dimples, by\nwhich her fondness becomes a perfect sneer. As for the expression of\nmodern sorrow, every one knows it, who has seen cuts, hair torn, garments\nrent, quite the reverse of the antique, which, like Hamlet\u2019s,\n\n    \u2014\u2014_hath that within, which passeth shew:_\n    _These, but the trappings, and the suits of woe._\n\nThe gestures of the hands of antique figures, and their attitudes in\ngeneral, are those of people that think themselves alone and unobserved:\nand though the hands of but very few statues have escaped destruction,\nyet may you, from the direction of the arm, guess at the easy and natural\nmotion of the hand. Some moderns, indeed, that have supplied statues\nwith hands or fingers, have too often given them their own favourite\nattitudes\u2014that of a Venus at her toilet, displaying to her levee the\ngraces of a hand,\n\n    \u2014\u2014_far lovelier when beheld._\n\nThe action of modern hands is commonly like the gesticulation of a\nyoung preacher, piping-hot from the college. Holds a figure her cloths?\nYou would think them cobweb. Nemesis, who, on antique gems, lifts her\npeplum softly from her bosom, would be thought too griping for any new\nperformance\u2014how can you be so unpolite to think any thing may be held,\nwithout the three last fingers genteely stretched forth?\n\nGrace, in the accidental parts of antiques, consists, like that of the\nessential ones, in what becomes nature. The drapery of the most ancient\nworks is easy and slight: hence it was natural to give the folds beneath\nthe girdle an almost perpendicular direction.\u2014Variety indeed was sought,\nin proportion to the increase of art; but drapery still remained a\nthin floating texture, with folds gathered up, not lumped together, or\nindiscreetly scattered. That these were the chief principles of ancient\ndrapery, you may convince yourself from the beautiful Flora in the\nCampidoglio, a work of Hadrian\u2019s times. Bacchanals and dancing figures\nhad, indeed, even if statues, more waving garments, such as played upon\nthe air; such a one is in the Palazzo Riccardi at Florence; but even then\nthe artists did not neglect appearances, nor exceed the nature of the\nmaterials. Gods and heroes are represented as the inhabitants of sacred\nplaces; the dwellings of silent awe, not like a sport for the winds, or\nas wafting the colours: floating, airy garments are chiefly to be met\nwith on gems\u2014where Atalanta flies\n\n    _As meditation swift, swift as the thoughts of love._\n\nGrace extends to garments, as such were given to the Graces by the\nancients. How would you wish to see the Graces dressed? Certainly not in\nbirth-day robes; but rather like a beauty you loved, still warm from the\nbed, in an easy neglig\u00e9e.\n\nThe moderns, since the epoch of _Raphael_ and his school, seem to have\nforgot that drapery participates of Grace, by their giving the preference\nto heavy garments, which might not improperly be called the wrappers\nof ignorance in beauty: for a thick large-folded drapery may spare the\nartists the pains of tracing the Contour under it, as the ancients did.\nSome of the modern figures seem to be made only for lasting. _Bernini_\nand _Peter_ of _Cortona_ introduced this drapery. For ourselves, we\nchoose light easy dresses; why do we grudge our figures the same\nadvantage?\n\nHe that would give a History of Grace, after the revolution of the arts,\nwould perhaps find himself almost reduced to negatives, especially in\nsculpture.\n\nIn sculpture, the imitation of one great man, of _Michael Angelo_, has\ndebauched the artists from Grace. He, who valued himself upon his being\n\u201ca pure intelligence\u201d despised all that could please humanity; his\nexalted learning disdained to stoop to tender feelings and lovely grace.\n\nThere are poems of his published, and in manuscript, that abound in\nmeditations on sublime beauty: but you look in vain for it in his\nworks.\u2014Beauty, even the beauty of a God, wants Grace, and Moses, without\nit, from awful as he was, becomes only terrible. Immoderately fond of\nall that was extraordinary and difficult, he soon broke through the\nbounds of antiquity, grace, and nature; and as he panted for occasions\nof displaying skill only, he grew extravagant. His lying statues, on\nthe ducal tombs of St. Lorenzo at Florence, have attitudes, which life,\nundistorted, cannot imitate: so careless was he, provided he might dazzle\nyou with his mazy learning, of that decency, which nature and the place\nrequired, that to him we might apply, what a poet says of St. Lewis in\nhell:\n\n    _Laissant le vray pour prendre la grimace,_\n    _Il fut toujours au del\u00e0 de la Grace,_\n    _Et bien plus loin que les commandements._\n\nHe was blindly imitated by his disciples, and in them the want of Grace\nshocks you still more: for as they were far his inferiors in science,\nyou have no equivalent at all. How little _Guilielmo della Porta_, the\nbest of them all, understood grace and the antique, you may see in that\nmarble groupe, called the Farnese-bull; where Dirce is his to the girdle.\n_John di Bologna_, _Algardi_, _Fiammingo_, are great names, but likewise\ninferior to the ancients, in Grace.\n\nAt last _Lorenzo Bernini_ appeared, a man of spirit and superior talents,\nbut whom Grace had never visited even in dreams. He aimed at encyclop\u00e6dy\nin art; painter, architect, statuary, he struggled, chiefly as such,\nto become original. In his eighteenth year he produced his Apollo and\nDaphne; a work miraculous for those years, and promising that sculpture\nby him should attain perfection. Soon after he made his David, which\nfell short of Apollo. Proud of general applause, and sensible of his\nimpotency, either to equal or to offuscate the antiques; he seems,\nencouraged by the dastardly taste of that age, to have formed the\nproject of becoming a legislator in art, for all ensuing ages, and he\ncarried his point. From that time the Graces entirely forsook him: how\ncould they abide with a man who begun his career from the end opposite\nto the ancients? His forms he compiled from common nature, and his ideas\nfrom the inhabitants of climates unknown to him; for in Italy\u2019s happiest\nparts nature differs from his figures. He was worshipped as the genius of\nart, and universally imitated; for, in our days, statues being erected to\npiety only, none to wisdom, a statue _\u00e0 la Bernini_ is likelier to make\nthe kitchen prosper than a Laocoon.\n\nFrom Italy, reader, I leave you to guess at other countries. A celebrated\n_Puget_, _Girardon_, with all his brethren in _On_, are worse. Judge\nof the connoisseurs of France by _Watelet_, and of its designers, by\n_Mariette_\u2019s gems.\n\nAt Athens the Graces stood eastward, in a sacred place. Our artists\nshould place them over their work-houses; wear them in their rings; seal\nwith them; sacrifice to them; and, court their sovereign charms to their\nlast breath.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n[1] Plato in Tim\u00e6o. Edit. Francof. p. 1044.\n\n[2] In Tim\u00e6um Platonis.\n\n[3] Vide Pindar. Olymp. Od. VII. Arg. & Schol.\n\n[4] Some are of opinion, that the celebrated Ludovisian gladiator, now in\nthe great sallon of the capitol, is this same whom Pliny mentions.\n\n[5] Vide Bellori Descriz delle Imagini dipinte da Raffaelle d\u2019Vrbino, &c.\nRoma. 1695 fol.\n\n[6] Vide Stosch Pierres grav. pl. XXXIII.\n\n[7] Baldinucci Vita del Cav. Bernini.\n\n[8] Vide Stosch Pierres Grav. pl. XXIX. XXX.\n\n[9] Vide Mus. Flor. T. II. t. V.\n\n[10] Vide Zanetti Statue nell\u2019 Antisala della libraria di S. Marco.\nVenez. 1740. fol.\n\n[11] Among the busts remarkable for that coarser Drapery, we may reckon\nthe beauteous Caracalla in the royal cabinet at Dresden.\n\n[12] Vide Wright\u2019s Travels.\n\nThe victorious St. Michael of Guido, treads on the body of his\nantagonist, with all the precision of a dancing-master. Webb\u2019s Inquiry,\n&c.\n\n[13] Vasari vite de Pittori, Scult. et Arch. edit. 1568. Part III. p.\n776.\u2014\u2014\u201cQuattro prigioni bozzati, che possano insegnare \u00e0 cavare de\u2019 Marmi\nle figure con un modo sicuro da non istorpiare i sassi, che il modo \u00e8\nquesto, che s\u2019 e\u2019 si pigliassi una figura di cera \u00f2 d\u2019 altra materia\ndura, e si metessi \u00e0 giacere in una conca d\u2019 acqua, la quale acqua\nessendo per la sua natura nella sua sommit\u00e0 piana et pari, alzando la\ndetta figura \u00e0 poco del pari, cosi vengono \u00e0 scoprirsi prima le parti piu\nrelevate e \u00e0 nascondersi i fondi, cio\u00e8 le parti piu basse della figura,\ntanto che nel fine ella cosi viene scoperta tutta. Nel medesimo modo si\ndebbono cavare con lo scarpello le figure de\u2019 Marmi, prima scoprendo le\nparti piu rilevate, e di mano in mano le piu basse, il quale modo si\nvede osservato da Michael Angelo ne\u2019 sopra detti prigioni, i quali sua\nEccellenza vuole, che servino per esempio de suoi Academici.\u201d\n\n[14] Lettere d\u2019alcuni Bolognesi, Vol. I. p. 159.\n\n[15] Compare a description of a St. Sebastian of Beccafumi, another of\na Hercules and Ant\u00e6us of Lanfranc, &c. in Raguenet\u2019s Monumens de Rome,\nParis, 12mo.\n\n[16] Labat voyage en Espagne & en Ital. T. III. p. 213.\u2014\u2014\u201cMichel Ange\n\u00e9toit aussi savant dans l\u2019antiquit\u00e9 que dans l\u2019anatomie, la sculpture,\nla peinture, et l\u2019architecture; et puisqu\u2019 il nous a represent\u00e9 Moyse\navec une si belle et si longue barbe, il est s\u00fbr, et doit passer pour\nconstant, que le prophete la portoit ainsi; et par une consequence\nnecessaire les Juifs, qui pretendent le copier avec exactitude, et qui\nfont la plus grande partie de leur religion de l\u2019observance des usages\nqu\u2019 il a laiss\u00e9, doivent avoir de la barbe comme lui, ou renoncer \u00e0 la\nqualit\u00e9 de Juifs.\u201d\n\n[17] Apotheos. Homeri, p. 81, 82.\n\n[18] Stosch Pierr. Grav. pl. XIX.\n\n[19] Monum. Antiquit. p. 255.\n\n[20] Puffendorf Rer. Suec. L. XX. \u00a7. 50. p. 796.\n\n[21] Sandrart Acad. P. II. L. 2. c. 6. p. 118. Conf. St. Gelais descr.\ndes Tabl. du Palais Royal, p. 12. & seq.\n\n[22] Plin. Hist. Nat. L. 35. c. 10.\n\n[23] Lucian de Hist. Scrib.\n\n[24] Strabo Geogr. L. VIII. p. 542.\n\n[25] Vitruv. L. III. c. 1.\n\n[26] Borell. de motu animal. P. I. c. 18. prop. 142. p. 142. edit.\nBernoull.\n\n[27] Stosch. Pierr. Grav. pl. XXXV.\n\n[28] Stosch Pierr. Grav. pl. XXXV.\n\n[29] Mariette Pierr. Grav. T. II. n. 94.\n\n[30] Stosch Pierr. Grav. pl. LIV.\n\n[31] Pausanias, L. VI. c. 7. p. 470.\n\n[32] Dioscorid. de Re Medica, L. V. c. 179. Conf. Salmas. Exercit. Plin.\nc. 15. p. 134. b.\n\n[33] Aristoph. Nub. v. 1178. ibid. v. 1363. Et Scholiast.\n\n[34] Observat. sur les arts, sur quelques morceaux de peint. & sculpt.\nexpos\u00e9s au Louvre en 1748, p. 18.\n\n[35] Riposo di Raffaello Borghini, L. I. p. 46.\n\n[36] See the Cupid by SOLON, Stosch. 64. the Cupid leading the Lioness,\nby SOSTRATUS, Stosch. 66. and a Child and Faun, by AXEOCHUS, Stosch 20.\n\n[37] Vide Bartoli Admiranda Rom. fol. 50, 51, 61. Zanetti Stat. Antich.\nP. II. fol. 33.\n\n[38] Vide Callistrat. p. 903.\n\n[39] Vide Philostrati Heroic.\n\n[40] Vide Baldinucci vita del Caval. Bernin. p. 47.\n\n[41] Vide Baldinucci vita del Caval. Bernin. p. 72.\n\n[42] Trattato della pittura e scultura, uso et abuso loro, composto da un\ntheologo e da un pittore. Fiorenza, 1652. 4.\n\n[43] Bellori vite de\u2019 pittori, &c. p. 300.\n\n[44] Richardson, Tom. III. p. 94.\n\n[45] Xenophon Memorab. L. III. c. 6, 7.\n\n[46] Vide Baldinucci vita del Cav. Bernini, p. 66.\n\n[47] Plin. Hist. Nat. L. 35. c. 10.\n\n[48] Quintilian. Instit. Or. L. 12. c. 19.\n\n[49] Idyll. 18. v. 29.\n\n[50] De Pile\u2019s Conversat. sur la peint.\n\n[51] Du Bos Refl. sur la poesie & sur la peint.\n\n[52] The Stratonice was twice painted by Lairesse. The picture we talk of\nis the smallest of the two: the figure is about one foot and a half, and\ndiffers from the other in the disposition of the Parerga.\n\n[53] See Plutarch. in Demetr. & Lucian. de Dea Syria.\n\n[54] Vide Lettre de Mr. Huet sur la Pourpre: dans les Dissertat. de\nTilladet. Tom. II. p. 169.\n\n[55] St. Real C\u00e6sarion, T. II. Le Blanc Lettre sur l\u2019Expos. des Ouvrages\nde Peint, &c. 1747.\n\n[56] De Oratore, L. II. c. 21.\n\n[57] Aristot. Rhet. L. I. c. 1. \u00a7. 4.\n\n[58] Xenophon Resp. Laced. c. 3. \u00a7. 5.\n\n[59] Origines Contra Cels. L. IV. p. 196. Edit. Cantabr.\n\n[60] Perrault sur Vitruve Explic. de la Planche IX. p. 62.\n\n[61] Dialog. Inconfus. p. 76.\n\n[62] Horapoll. Hierogl. c. 33. Conf. Blackwell\u2019s Enq. into Hom. p. 170.\n\n[63] De Re rust. pr\u00e6f. ad L. I. \u00a7. 32. p. 392. Edit. Gesn.\n\n[64] Vitruv. L. IV. c. 1.\n\n[65] Travels, T. II.\n\n[66] Plutarch. Numa. p. 149. L. 14. Edit. Bryani.\n\n[67] Passerii Lucern.\n\n[68] Menage Diction. Etymol. v. Barroque.\n\n[69] Vide Desgodez Edifices antiq. de Rome, p. 91.\n\n[70] Bartoli Sepolcri Antichi, p. 67. ibid. fig. 91.\n\n[71] Perrault notes sur Vitruv. L. IV. ch. 2. n. 21. p. 118.\n\n[72] Martial, L. III. Ep. 41. 1.\n\n[73] Bellori Sepolchri ant. f. 99.\n\n[74] Virgil, \u00c6n. V. v. 250. & seq.\n\n[75] Pausanias, L. IX. c. 40. p. 794. Conf. Spanhem. Not. sur les C\u00e6esars\nde l\u2019Emp. Julien. p. 240.\n\n[76] Kircheri Oedip. \u00c6gypt. T. III. p. 405, & 433.\n\n[77] Bianchini Istor. Univ. p. 412.\n\n[78] Nehem. Grew Mus\u00e6um Societ. Reg. Lond. 1681. fol. p. 1.\n\n[79] Vide Gabr. Bremond Viaggi nell\u2019Egitto. Roma. 1579. 4. L. I. c. 15.\np. 77.\n\n[80] Clemens Alex. Strom. L. VI. p. 456.\n\n[81] Shaw, Voyage, T. II. p. 123.\n\n[82] Della Valle Viaggi. Lettr. 11. \u00a7. 9. p. 325. & seq.\n\n[83] Herodot. L. II. c. 36. Diod. Sic.\n\n[84] Plutarch. de Isid. & Osirid. p. 374.\n\n[85] Kircher Oed. I. c. ej. Prodrom. Copt. c. 7.\n\n[86] Herodot. L. II. c. 153.\n\n[87] Diogen. Laert. v. Democr.\n\n[88] Diodor. Sic. L. I. c. 29. Edit. Wessel.\n\n[89] Kircher Oedip. I. c.\u2014it. ejusd. China illustrata. III. c. 4. p. 151.\n\n[90] Alberti Englische Briefe, B\u2014\u2014.\n\n[91] Clem. Alex. Strom. L. I. p. 354. Edit. Pott.\n\n[92] Herodot. L. II. c. 61.\n\n[93] Montfaucon Pal\u00e6ogr. Gr\u00e6c. L. III. c. 5. p. 230. Kuhn. Not. ad\nPausan. L. II. p. 128.\n\n[94] Augustin. Gem. P. II. l. 32.\n\n[95] Gruter. Corp. Inscr. p. DCCCLXI. \u1f10\u03c5\u03c4\u03c5\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5, \u03c7\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03b5, &c.\n\n[96] Prideaux Marm. Oxon. 4. & 179.\n\n[97] Demosth. Orat. pro Corona, p. 485, 499. Edit. Frc. 1604.\n\n[98] Gruter, Corp. Inscript. p. DCXLI. 8.\n\n[99] Montfaucon Pal\u00e6ogr. L. IV. c. 10. p. 336, 338.\n\n[100] Montf. L. I. c. 4. II. c. 6. p. 152.\n\n[101] Herod. L. II.\n\n[102] Descript. de l\u2019Egypte, par Mascriere, Lettr. VII. 23.\n\n[103] Descript. de l\u2019Eg. L. c.\n\n[104] Chishul. Inscr. Sig. p. 12.\n\n[105] Kircher. Obelisc. Pamph. c. 8. p. 147.\n\n[106] Cicero de Oratore, L. II. c. 37.\n\n[107] The author was then preparing for a journey to Rome.\n\n[108] Argenville abreg\u00e9 de la V. d. P. T. II. p. 287.\n\n[109] Reise, p. 21.\n\n[110] Strabo, L. XIV. p. 652. al. 965. l. 11.\n\n[111] Richardson Essay, &c. p. 38, 39.\n\n[112] Diomedes, for ought I can see, is neither a sitting nor a standing\nfigure, in both which cases the critick must be allowed to be just. He\ndescends. _Remark of the T. L._\n\n[113] Cicero de Fato, c. 4.\n\n[114] Strabo, L. IV. p. 196. al. 299. l. 22.\n\n[115] Misopog. p. 342. l. 13.\n\n[116] Strabo, L. III. p. 158. al. 238.\n\n[117] Du Bos Reflex. sur la Poesie et s. l. P. II. 144.\n\n[118] Herodot. L. III. c. 106. Cicero ad Attic. L. VI. cp. 2.\n\n[119] \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd. p. 288. edit. Foesii. Galenus \u1f41\u03c4\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03a8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f28\u03b8\u03b7 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2\n\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c3\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9 \u1f11\u03c0\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9. fol. 171. B. I. 43. edit. Ald. T. I.\n\n[120] Chardin voyage en Perse, T. II. p. 127. & seq.\n\n[121] Journal des S\u00e7avans l\u2019An. 1684. Aur. p. 153.\n\n[122] Apud Euseb. Pr\u00e6par. Evang. L. V. c. 29. p. 226. edit. Colon.\n\n[123] Plin. Hist. Nat. L. V. c. 8.\n\n[124] Lahontan Memoir. T. II. p. 217. Cons. W\u00f6ldike de ling. Gr\u00f6nland, p.\n144, & seq. Act. Hafn. T. II.\n\n[125] Clarmont de \u00c6re, Locis, & aquis Angli\u00e6. Lond. 1672. 12.\n\n[126] Wotton\u2019s Reflex, upon ancient and modern Learning, p. 4. Pope\u2019s\nLetter to Mr. Walsh, T. I. 74.\n\n[127] Lakemacher Observ. Philolog. P. III. Observ. IV. p. 250, &c.\n\n[128]\n\n    Th\u2019 impatient weapon whizzes on the wing;\n    Sounds the tough horn, and twangs the quiv\u2019ring string, &c.\n\n    POPE.\n\n[129] Longin. \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03c8. Sect. 13. \u00a7. 1.\n\n[130] Odyss. \u03bb. v. 71. Conf. Iliad, \u0393. v. 363. & Eustath. ad h. l. p.\n424. L. 10. edit. Rom.\n\n[131] Gregor. Thaumat. Orat. Paneg. ad Origen. 49.\n\n[132] Aristoph. Ran. v. 1485.\n\n[133] Athen. Deipnos. L. XII. c. 13. \u00c6lian, V. H. I. ix. 14.\n\n[134] Aristoph. Equit.\n\n[135] Thucyd. L. II. c. 39.\n\n[136] Horat. L. II. Ep. I. v. 244.\n\n[137] Cicero de fato. c. 4.\n\n[138] \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd. p. 204.\n\n[139] Cicero Orat. c. 8. Conf. Dic\u00e6arch, Geogr. edit. H. Steph. c. 2. p.\n16.\n\n[140] Nubes, v. 1365.\n\n[141] Schol. ad Aristoph. Nub. v. 1010.\n\n[142] Plutarch, de Sera Numin. Vindicta, p. 563. 9.\n\n[143] Cicero de Orat.\n\n[144] Golzius, Tab. XIV. T. II.\n\n[145] Diodorus Sic. L. XX. p. 763. al. 449.\n\n[146] Stukely\u2019s Itinerar. III. p. 32.\n\n[147] Theophrast. Hist. Pl. L. IX. c. 16. p. 1131. l. 7. ed. Amst. 1644.\nfol. Galen de Antidot. I. fol. 63. B. I. 28. Idem de Theriac. ad Pison.\nfol. 85. A. I. 20.\n\n[148] Tournefort Voyage, Lett. I. p. 10. edit. Amst.\n\n[149] Belon. Observ. L. II. ch. 9. p. 151. a.\n\n[150] Idem. L. III. ch. 34. p. 350. b. Corn. le Brun. V. fol. p. 169.\n\n[151] Dic\u00e6arch. Geogr. c. 1. p. 1.\n\n[152] Voyage de Spon et Wheeler, T. II. p. 75, 76.\n\n[153] Wheeler\u2019s Journey into Greece, p. 347.\n\n[154] Conf. Lysis, p. 499. Edit. Fref. 1602.\n\n[155] De Republ.\n\n[156] De Leg. L. VII. p. 892, l. 30-6. Conf. Petiti Leg. att. p. 296.\nMaittaire Marm. Arund. p. 483. Gronov. ad Plaut. Bacchid. v. Ante Solem\nExorientem.\n\n[157] Galen, de Simpl. Medic. Facult. L. II. c. 5. fol. 9. A. Opp. Tom.\nII. Frontin. Stratag. L. I. c. 7.\n\n[158] Lucian Gymn. p. 907. Opp. T. II. Edit. Reitz.\n\n[159] Dion. Halic. A. R. c. 1. \u00a7. 6. de vi dicendi in Demost. c. 29.\nEdit. Oxon.\n\n[160] \u03a8. v. 163.\n\n[161] Numism. Imp. p. 160.\n\n[162] Philostrat. Epist. 22. p. 922. Conf. Macrob. Sat. L. V. c. 18. p.\n357. Edit. Lond. 1694. 8. Hygin. Sat. 12.\n\n[163] Conf. Arbuthnot\u2019s Tabl. of Anc. Coins, ch. 6. p. 116.\n\n[164] Thucyd. L. I. c. 6. Eustath. ad Iliad. \u03a8. p. 1324. l. 16.\n\n[165] Cyrilli Hieros. Catech. Mystag. II. c. 2, 3, 4. p. 284. ed. Thom.\nMiles, Oxon. 1703. fol. 305. Vice Comitis Observ. de Antiq. Baptismi rit.\nL. IV. c. 10. p. 286-89. Binghami Orig. Eccles. T. IV. L. XI. c. 11.\nGodeau Hist. de l\u2019Eglise, T. I. L. III. p. 623.\n\n[166] Lucian. Dial. Mort. X. \u00a7. 3.\n\n[167] Idem. Navig. E. 2. p. 248.\n\n[168] De la Chambre Discours; o\u00f9 il est prouv\u00e9 que les Fran\u00e7ois font les\nplus capables de tous les peuples de la perfection de l\u2019\u00e9loquence, p. 15.\n\n[169] Lucian, pro Imagin. p. 490. Edit. Reitz. T. II.\n\n[170] Cic. Brut. c. 7. & 83.\n\n[171] Considerations sur les Revolutions des Arts. Paris, 1755, p. 33.\n\n[172] Pagi. Discours sur l\u2019Histoire Grecque, p. 45.\n\n[173] Nouveau Voyage d\u2019Hollande, de l\u2019Allem., de Suisse & d\u2019Italie, par\nM. de Blainville.\n\n[174] Richardson\u2019s Account, &c. 294, 295.\n\n[175] Chambray Id\u00e9e de la Peint. p. 46. au Mans, 1662. 4to.\n\n[176] Plin. Hist. Nat. L. XXXV. c. 10.\n\n[177] (Durand) Extrait de l\u2019Histoire de la Peint. de Pline. p. 56.\n\n[178] Observat. sur les Arts & sur quelques morceaux de Peint. & de\nSculpt. expos\u00e9s au Louvre, 1748. p. 65.\n\n[179] Nouvelle Division de la Terre par les diff\u00e9rentes Esp\u00e8ces d\u2019Hommes,\n&c. dans le Journ. des S\u00e7av. 1704. Avr. 152.\n\n[180] Plutarch. Vit. \u00c6mil. p. 147. ed. Bryani. T. II.\n\n[181] Lucian. Navig. S. Votum. c. 2. p. 249.\n\n[182] Borghini Riposo, L. II. p. 129.\n\n[183] Chambray Id\u00e9e de la Peint. p. 47.\n\n[184] Maxim. Tyr. Diss. 25. p. 303. Edit. Markl.\n\n[185] Vide Spectator, N. 418.\n\n[186] Philostrat. Icon. Anton. p. 91.\n\n[187] Plutarch. Ant.\n\n[188] Observat. sur les Arts, &c., p. 65.\n\n[189] Quintil. L. IX. c. 14.\n\n[190] Plutarch, Timoleon. P. 142.\n\n[191] Plutarch. Adul. & Amici discrim. p. 53. D.\n\n[192] Aristot. Rhet. L. I. c. 11. p. 61. Edit. Lond. 1619. 4to. Plato\nPh\u00e6d. p. 46. I. 44.\n\n[193] Cicero Tusc. L. I. c. 28.\n\n[194] Aristot. Poet. c. 28.\n\n[195] Aristot. Rhet. III. c. 2. \u00a7. 4.\n\n[196] Herodot. L. II. c. 50.\n\n[197] Herodot. L. II. c. 3. c. 47. Conf. L. II. c. 61. Pausan. L. II. p.\n71. l. 45. p. 114. l. 57. L. V. p. 317. l. 6.\n\n[198] Pausan. L. II. c. 17. p. 149. l. 24.\n\n[199] Arrian. Epict. L. III. c. 21. p. 439. Edit. Upton.\n\n[200] Plutarch, de Isid. & Osir. p. 355. Clem. Alex. Strom. L. V. p. 657,\n58. Edit. Potteri. \u00c6lian. Hist. Anim. L. 10. c. 15.\n\n[201] Plut. L. C. p. 376. Androvand. de Quadr. digit. Vivipar. L. III. p.\n574.\n\n[202] Strabo, L. XVI. p. 760. al. 1104.\n\n[203] Pausan. L. III. p. 245. l. 21.\n\n[204] Kircher Oedip. \u00c6g. T. III. p. 64. Lucian. Nav. 3 Vol. c. 1. Bayf.\nde re Nav. p. 130. edit. Bas. 1537. 4.\n\n[205] Schaffer de re Nav. L. III. c. 3. p. 196. Passerii Luc. T. II. tab.\n93.\n\n[206] Lactant. ad v. 253. L. VII. Thebaid.\n\n[207] Beger. Thes. Palat. p. 234. Numism. Musell. Reg. et Pop. T. 8.\n\n[208] Haym. Tesoro Britt. T. I. p. 168.\n\n[209] Ap. Philostr. Heroic. p. 693.\n\n[210] Vaillant Num. Colon. Rom. T. II. p. 136. Conf. Bianchini Istor.\nUnic. p. 74.\n\n[211] Mus. Flor. T. I. Tab. 91. p. 175.\n\n[212] Petron. Sat. c. 34.\n\n[213] Spon. Miscell. Sect. I. Tab. 5.\n\n[214] Kircher Oedip. T. III. p. 555. Cuper de Elephant. Exercit. c. 3. p.\n32.\n\n[215] In Extremis Gadibus. v. Eustath. ad II. A. p. 744. l. 4. ad. Rom.\nId. ad Dionys. \u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b7\u03b3. ad v. 453. p. 84. Ed. Oxon. 1712.\n\n[216] Kircher Oed. \u00c6g. T. III. p. 555.\n\n[217] Horapoll. Hierogl. L. II. c. 84.\n\n[218] Cuper. l. c. Spanh. Diss. T. I, p. 169.\n\n[219] Agost, Dialog. II. p. 68.\n\n[220] Homer. \u039f\u0394. \u0395., v. 121. Conf. Heraclid. Pontic. de Allegoria Homeri.\np. 492. Meurs. de funere. c. 7.\n\n[221] Venuti Num. max. moduli. T. 25. Rom. 1739. fol. Bellori Admir. fol.\n30.\n\n[222] Pausan. L. X. p. 806. l. 16.\n\n[223] Licet. Gem. Anul. c. 48.\n\n[224] Beger. Theo. Brand. T. 1. p. 182.\n\n[225] Ibid. p. 281.\n\n[226] Justin. L. XV. c. 4. p. 412. edit. Gronov.\n\n[227] Spanh. Diss. T. I. p. 407.\n\n[228] Ap. D. C. de Moezinsky.\n\n[229] Paus. L. V. p. 447. l. 22.\n\n[230] Ibid. L. 1. p. 52. l. 4.\n\n[231] Pausan. L. III. p. 245. l. 20. Morel Specim. Rei. N. XII.\n\n[232] Spanhem. Diss. T. I. p. 154.\n\n[233] Spanhem. Obs. ad Juliani Imp. Orat. I. p. 282.\n\n[234] Montfaucon Ant. expl. T. III.\n\n[235] Morell. Specim. Rei Num. T. VIII. p. 92.\n\n[236] Artemidor. Oneirocr. L. II. c. 49.\n\n[237] Noct. Attic. L. XIV. c. 4.\n\n[238] Agost. Dialog. II. p. 45. Rom. 1650. fol.\n\n[239] Tristan. Comm. hist. de l\u2019Emp. T. I. p. 297.\n\n[240] Numism. Musell. Imp. R. tab. 38.\n\n[241] Ibid. Tab. II.\n\n[242] Ibid. Tab. XXIX. Erisso Dichiaraz. di Medagl. ant. P. II. p. 130.\n\n[243] Plutarch Syll. p. 50, 51.\n\n[244] Conf. Philostrat. Imag. p. 737.\n\n[245] Plin. Hist. N. L. XVIII. c. 47. Agost. Dial. III. p. 104.\n\n[246] Gabri\u00e6 Fab. p. 169. in \u00c6sop. Fab. Venet. 1709. 8.\n\n[247] Pausan. L. I. c. 43. p. 105. L. 7.\n\n[248] Plutarch. Sympos. L. IX. qu. 6.\n\n[249] Vaillant Numism. Imp. T. II. p. 133.\n\n[250] Plutarch. Vit. Thes. p. 26.\n\n[251] Agost. Dial. II. p. 66, 67. Numism. Musell. Imp. Rom. Tab. 115.\n\n[252] Ripa Iconol. n. 87.\n\n[253] Thesaur. de Arguta Dict.\n\n[254] Numism. Musell. Imp. R. Tab. 107.\n\n[255] Ibid. Tab. 106.\n\n[256] Ibid. Tab. 105.\n\n[257] Ripa Iconol. P. I. n. 53.\n\n[258] Agost. Dial. II. p. 57. Numism. Musell. l. c. Tab. 68.\n\n[259] Agost. l. c.\n\n[260] Ripa Ic. P. I. n. 135.\n\n[261] Agost. Dial. II. p. 47.\n\n[262] Ripa Iconol. P. I. n. 31.\n\n[263] Ibid. P. I. n. 25.\n\n[264] Vide Picinelli Mund. Symb.\n\n[265] Shaw Voyag. T. I.\n\n[266] Hayman Tesoro Brit. T. I. p. 219.\n\n[267] Egnatius de exempl. illustr. Vir. Venet. L. V. p. 133.\n\n[268] Numism. Barbar. Gent. n. 37. Padova. 1732. fol.\n\n[269] Medailles de Louis le Grand, a. 1663. Paris 1702. fol.\n\n[270] Thesaur. de Argut. Dict.\n\n[271] Ripa Iconol. P. II. p. 166.\n\n[272] Spectator, Edit. 1724. Vol. II. p. 201.\n\n[273] Canini Imag. des Heros. N. I.\n\n[274] Stoch Pier. Grav. Pl. LI.\n\n[275] Pausan. L. X. p. 870. 871.\n\n[276] Vit. Thesei. p. 29.\n\n[277] De Monstrosa Amicitia respectu perfectionis inter Nic. Barbar. &\nMarc. Trivisan. Venet. apud Franc. Baba. 1628. 4.\n\n[278] Vita Marcelli. Ortelii Capita Deor. L. II. fig. 41.\n\n[279] Thomasin. Donar. Vet. c. 5.\n\n[280] Plutarch. Qu\u00e6st. Rom. P. 266. F.\n\n[281] Vulp. Latium. T. I. L. I. c. 27. p. 406.\n\n[282] Agostin. Dialog. II. p. 81.\n\n[283] Ibid. & Beger Obs. in Num. p. 56.\n\n[284] Iliad, i. v. 498. Conf. Heraclides Pontic. de Allegoria Homeri, p.\n457, 58.\n\n[285] Architect. L. II. c. 8.\n\n[286] Vide Representatio Bibliothec\u00e6 Cesare\u00e6 Vienn\u00e6 1737. fol. obt.\n\n[287] This piece is engraved by Simmoneau Senior Cons. Lepici\u00e9 Vies des\np. P. de R. T. I. p. 64.\n\n[288] Another representation of that story, and one of Poussin\u2019s best\noriginals, is in the gallery of Dresden, in which the river god is\nextremely advantageous to the composition of the whole.\n\n[289] Plin.\n\n[290] Plato Alcibiad. II. P. 457. l. 30.\n\n[291] Baldinucci, Notiz. de\u2019 P. d. D. P. 118. Argenville seems not to\nhave understood the word, _Ciliegia_: he saw that it should be a symbol\nof spring, and changed the cherry to a butterfly; the chief object of the\npicture he omits, and talks only of the girl.\n\n[292] Lepici\u00e8 Vies des P. R. P. II. p. 17, 18.\n\n[293] Recueil d\u2019Estamp. de la Gall. de Dresd. fol. 48.\n\n[294] Pompa & Introitus Ferdinandi Hisp. Inf. p. 15. Antv. 1641. fol.\n\n[295] Vasari vite. P. III. Vol. I. p. 76.\n\n[296] Chambray Id\u00e9e de la P. p. 107, 108. Bellori Descriz. delle Imagini\ndip. da Raffaello, &c.\n\n[297] Heraclid. Pontic. de Allegoria Homeri, p. 443.\n\n[298] Josephi Antiq. L. XIV. c. 8. Edit. Haverc.\n\n[299] Dati vite de\u2019 Pittori. p. 73.\n\n[300] Thesaur. Idea Arg. Dict. C. III. p. 84.\n\n[301] Blondel Maisons de Plaisance, T. II. p. 26.\n\n[302] Passerii Lucern\u00e6 fict. Tab. 51.\n\n[303] Quellinus Maison de la Ville d\u2019Amst. 1655. fol.\n\n[304] Arnob., adv. Gentes L. V. p. 157. Edit. Lugd. 1651. 4.\n\n[305] An ox-head on the reverse of an Attick gold coin, stamped with the\nhead of Hercules and his club, is supposed to allude to his labours,\n(Haym. Tesoro Britt. l. 182.) and to be, in general, a symbol of\nstrength, industry, or patience, (Hypnerotomachia Polyphili. Venet. Ald.\nfol.)\n\n[306] Vitruv. L. I. c. 2.\n\n[307] Diodor. Sic. L. XIII. p. 375. al. 507.\n\n[308] Blondel Maisons de Plaisance.\n\n[309] Vide Spectator, No. 51.\n\n[310] Pausan. L. I. c. 43. l. 22.\n\n[311] Plin. Hist. N. L. XXXVI. c. 5.\n\n[312] Paus. L. II. c. 2. P. 115. l. 11.\n\n[313] Idem. L. IX. c. 40. P. 795. l. 11.\n\n[314] Aldrovand. de Quadrup. bisulc. p. 141.\n\n[315] Bellori Lucern. Sepulcr. P. I. fig. 17.\n\n[316] Spon. Misc. Sect. II. Art. I. P. 25.\n\n[317] Vide Buonarotti Osserv. sopra alcuni Medagli. Proem. p. XXVI. Roma.\n1693. 4.\n\n[318] Plutarch. de Garrulit. p. 502.\n\n[319] Tristan Comment. Hist. des Emper. T. I. p. 632.\n\n[320] Plutarch. Marcell. p. 277.\n\n[321] Vulpii Latium, T. II. L. II. c. 20. p. 175.\n\n[322] Banier Mythol. T. II. L. I. ch. 11. p. 181.\n\n[323] Dioscorid. de Re Med. L. V. c. 179.\n\n[324] Fred. Oeser, one of the most extensive geniuses which the present\nage can boast of, is a German, and now lives at Dresden; where, to\nthe honour of his country, and the emolument of the art, he gets his\nlivelihood by teaching young blockheads, of the Saxon-race, the elements\nof drawing; and by etching after the Flemish painters. N. of Transl.\n\n[325] Hymn. in Apoll.\n\n[326] Alexander, in his S. John, in _St. Andrea della Valle_ at Rome;\nNiobe, in a picture belonging to the _Tesoro di S. Gennaro_, at Naples.\n\n[327] So are the goddesses of the Theop\u00e6gnia at Blenheim, in Oxfordshire;\nand hence it is clear, that another Venus, analogous to that in the\nTribuna, among the pictures of a gentleman in London, cannot be the\nproduction of that genius-in-flesh only. This daughter of the Idalian\ngraces seems to thrill with inward pleasure, and to recollect a night of\nbliss\u2014\u2014\n\n    There is language in her eye, her cheek, her lip:\n    Nay, her foot speaks\u2014\u2014\n\n    SHAKESPEAR.\n\n[328] Veron. illustr. P. III. c. 7. p. 269.\n\n[329] \u201cEt toi, rival des Praxiteles & des Phidias; toi dont les anciens\nauroient employ\u00e9 le ciseau \u00e0 leur faire des dieux capables d\u2019excuser \u00e0\nnos yeux leur idolatrie; inimitable Pigal, ta main se r\u00e9soudra a vendre\ndes magots, ou il faudra qu\u2019elle demeure oisive.\u201d J. J. Rousseau Disc.\nsur le Retabl. d. A. S. &c.\n\nThis, my dear countryman! is the only passage of thine, where posterity\nwill find the orator forgot the philosopher. N. of Tr.\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n\nERRATA.\n\n\n    Page 20. Line 13. _for_ comma _after_ says, _place_ semi-colon.\n\n    P. 61. L. 7. _for_ Morte _read_ Morto.\n\n    P. 83. Note, _for_ Bernoue _read_ Bernoull.\n\n    P. 94. L. 3. _after_ Nature _add a_ colon\u2014_after_ flat _add_ it.\n\n    P. 105. L. 10. _dele_ Lucian, Ep. I.\n\n    P. 166. Note f. _instead of_ \u1f48\u0394. \u03a4. v. 230. _read_ \u03a8. v. 163.\n\n    P. 181. L. 13. _for_ on _read_ in.\n\n    P. 189. L. 20. _for_ or _read_ on.\n\n    P. 197. Note d. _for_ adv. _read_ ad v.\n\n    P. 227. L. 12. _for_ the _read_ her.\n\n\nTranscriber\u2019s Note\n\nThe errata have been corrected. The notes referenced above are, with the\nnew numbering in this e-text, notes 26, 160 and 206.\n\nList of other changes made to the text:\n\n    Page 5, repeated \u201ca\u201d removed (Take a Spartan youth)\n\n    Page 48, \u201chindred\u201d changed to \u201chindered\u201d (as much water as\n    hindered)\n\n    Page 62, \u201cbarenness\u201d changed to \u201cbarrenness\u201d (\u2019Tis an\n    abhorrence of barrenness)\n\n    Page 89, \u201ccelelebrated\u201d changed to \u201ccelebrated\u201d (his celebrated\n    Carton of the Pisan war)\n\n    Page 174, \u201cParrhabasius\u201d changed to \u201cParrhasius\u201d (Parrhasius,\n    compared with himself)\n\n    Page 187, \u201cRembrant\u201d changed to \u201cRembrandt\u201d (some pieces of\n    Rembrandt and Vandyke)\n\n    Page 229, \u201cborn\u201d changed to \u201cborne\u201d (Spain is borne down by the\n    current)\n\n    Page 259, repeated \u201ca\u201d removed (though a few only find it)\n\n    Page 270, repeated \u201cthe\u201d removed (in the temple of art and\n    genius)\n\n    Footnote 7, \u201cBarnini\u201d changed to \u201cBernini\u201d (Vita del Cav.\n    Bernini)\n\n    Footnote 329, \u201csi\u201d changed to \u201csur\u201d (Rousseau Disc. sur le\n    Retabl. d. A. S. &c.)\n\nArchaic spellings remain as printed. Amendments to punctuation are not\notherwise noted.","title":"Reflections on the painting and sculpture of the Greeks : $b with instructions for the connoisseur, and an essay on grace in works of art","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":42949}