DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.5596#0298
THE IDEAL.
265
was difficult. One who had not been instructed
in the theory of the beautiful, would have imitated
only the unseemliness and deformity of his model.1
When a painter, says Plutarch, has to draw a fine
and elegant form, which happens to have some
little blemish, we do not want him entirely to pass
over that blemish, nor yet to mark it with exact-
ness : the one would spoil the beauty of the picture,
and the other destroy the likeness. This difference,
therefore, is to be observed in the treatment of
portraits in ancient and in modern times. While the
Roman and modern portraits represent every acci-
dental mark or blemish, those of the Greek philo-
sophers indicate only those peculiarities of the face
1 The details of this figure are thus described by David, from
whom are taken the preceding remarks :—" Les vices du squelette
ne sont pas deguises ; le rachitisme se voit jusque sur le visage.
Sorbite des yeux est plus ouvert et moins profond que dans les
tetes du haut style. On voit les prunelles. TJne levre se porte
legerement a droite, et l'autre vers le cote oppose. Le menton vient
en avant; la barbe courte et pointue presente peu de masses; elle
annonce un homme foible. Mais les muscles surciliers sont forts ;
le front est soutenu; l'enfoncement des tempes le fait paroitre
plus grand. Les cheveux, crepus et groupes en haut de la tete,
en augmentent Federation. Ce mouvement des cheveux, lais-
sant les oreilles a decouvert, agrandit les plans des joues. La
barbe et les cheveux sont d'un beau travail. La bouche
est fine et gracieuse; le regard anime se tourne vers le ciel;
l'ensemble de la figure a une verite, une douceur, une noblesse
inexprimables."—T. M. Emeric David, Rechercles sur la Sculp-
ture, p. 368. It is remarkable that the statue of iEsop was
placed at Athens before those of all other philosophers.
2 M
265
was difficult. One who had not been instructed
in the theory of the beautiful, would have imitated
only the unseemliness and deformity of his model.1
When a painter, says Plutarch, has to draw a fine
and elegant form, which happens to have some
little blemish, we do not want him entirely to pass
over that blemish, nor yet to mark it with exact-
ness : the one would spoil the beauty of the picture,
and the other destroy the likeness. This difference,
therefore, is to be observed in the treatment of
portraits in ancient and in modern times. While the
Roman and modern portraits represent every acci-
dental mark or blemish, those of the Greek philo-
sophers indicate only those peculiarities of the face
1 The details of this figure are thus described by David, from
whom are taken the preceding remarks :—" Les vices du squelette
ne sont pas deguises ; le rachitisme se voit jusque sur le visage.
Sorbite des yeux est plus ouvert et moins profond que dans les
tetes du haut style. On voit les prunelles. TJne levre se porte
legerement a droite, et l'autre vers le cote oppose. Le menton vient
en avant; la barbe courte et pointue presente peu de masses; elle
annonce un homme foible. Mais les muscles surciliers sont forts ;
le front est soutenu; l'enfoncement des tempes le fait paroitre
plus grand. Les cheveux, crepus et groupes en haut de la tete,
en augmentent Federation. Ce mouvement des cheveux, lais-
sant les oreilles a decouvert, agrandit les plans des joues. La
barbe et les cheveux sont d'un beau travail. La bouche
est fine et gracieuse; le regard anime se tourne vers le ciel;
l'ensemble de la figure a une verite, une douceur, une noblesse
inexprimables."—T. M. Emeric David, Rechercles sur la Sculp-
ture, p. 368. It is remarkable that the statue of iEsop was
placed at Athens before those of all other philosophers.
2 M