DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4263#0012
PREFACE
11
power for a considerable space of time, and distinguished themselves by a pre-eminence and univer-
sality of genius, unknown to other ages and nations.
During this happy period, their most renowned artists were produced. Sculpture and Archi-
tecture attained their highest degree of excellence at Athens in the time of Periclesa, when Phidias
distinguished himself with such superior ability that his works were considered as wonders by the An-
cients, so long as any knowledge or taste remained among them. His statue of Jupiter Olympius b,
we are told was never equalled"; and it was under his inspection that many of the most celebrated
buildings of Athens were erected". Several artists of most distinguished talents were his contempo-
raries, among whom we may reckon Callimachus, an Athenian, the inventor of the Corinthian Capital.
After this, a succession of excellent painters, sculptors and architects appeared, and these arts conti-
nued in Greece at their highest perfection till after the death of Alexander the Great.
Painting, sculpture and architecture, it should be observed, remained all that time in a very rude
and imperfect state among the Italiansc.
a'Ofs TrXii'a-Triv fxsv vrfowv tgcTs AS^vai? *** xi<7{j.o-j 'r]v<yy.s, jA-Eyia-rm dl
Trjv AsyojUEVflv ovvafU'J awns ly.dvws Ktti tov TraXcctov oX(3ov} r, rcHy ccvavr}ti.GCTuy
xatao-xivi. ' But that which was the chief delight and ornament
of Athens, and the astonishment of strangers, was the magnifi-
cence of the temples and public buildings that he [.Pericles]
erected; these alone are a sufficient proof that the accounts
which are given of the power and wealth of Ancient Greece are
not fabulous.' Plutarch in the life of Pericles.
b In a recent and splendid work by that distinguished French
writer on art, Quatremere de Quincy, entitled, " Le Jupiter
Olympien, ou l'art de la Sculpture Antique considere sous un
nouvel point de vue, Fol. Paris, 1815", the author, besides illus-
trating the description of various monuments of the heroic and
Homeric ages, with singular taste and ingenuity, enters on the
investigation of the mechanical construction of the wonderful co-
lossal productions in ivory and gold wrought by Phidias, [ed.]
0 Phidias simulacris nihil in illo genere perfeetius videmus.
' We see nothing more perfect in that kind than the statues of
Phidias.' Cicero in his Brutus.
Phidias prater Jovem Olympium, quern nemo femulatur, &c.
' Phidias besides the statue of Jupiter Olympius which nobody
has rivalled, made also that of Minerva,' &c. Pliny, Book
XXXIV. Chap. VIII. In which work are many other passages
in praise of Phidias. See likewise V. Maximus, Book III. Chap.
VII. the fourth foreign example1. Many other authors might be
cited to the same purpose.
x.a> xagirt, ray %r,[Uov^yuv u^Wupivuv virz^ftx.'xiaQcu Tr,v ^y^jov^yiixv t>j
y.a\?\iT£^vlxy fj.ccXn7ra va.V[j.a.aiov yiv T(j t^oj, jc.t.A. Tlccwa. Ts ^iutte xat
7TCCVTW iiriay.oTroi; vv cevru <t>E^/a£, y.cci roi jj.=ya\ov<; a^^iTiy.romi; l^ovTolv
km Ts^i'-ra; tm cgyur. ' These structures [of Pericles] stately as
they were in magnitude, and inimitable for their graceful form
and elegance (every artificer being ambitious that the diligence
of the workmanship might surpass the beauty of the design) were
yet more wonderful for the speed with which they were accom-
plished ; &c. It was Phidias who had the direction and super-
intendance of all these works for him [Tor Pericles], although
great architects and excellent workmen were employed in erect-
ing them.' Plutarch in the life of Pericles.
c It may here be objected, perhaps, that the ancient inhabit-
ants of Tuscany had applied themselves to these arts, and had
made no inconsiderable progress in them ; especially in sculpture
and architecture.
The Tuscans indeed seem to have been the best artists of an-
cient Italy, and it must be granted, that the art of casting figures
in brass was very ancient among them. Of these figures a suffi-
cient number are still remaining, to shew what degree of merit
we may assign to their authors. Many prints copied from them
have been published by the learned Dr. Gori, by that great orna-
ment of his country and of the present age, Count Caylus, and
by others. They all perfectly justify Quintilian in the judge-
1 De Fiducia sui, Exemp. in Externis, iv. ' Phidias,—interrogatus ab amico,
quonain mentem suam dirigens, vultum Jovis propemodum ex ipso ccelo petitum,
eboris lineamentis esset ampkxus: illis se versibusquasi magistvis usirai respondit: —
ment die made concerning the Tuscan statues, when illustrating
the several kinds of eloquence, and the gradual improvement of
the oratorial art, by examples taken from painting and sculp-
ture, he says (Book XII. Chap. X.), " Similis in statuis differen-
tia. Nam duriora, et Tuscanicis proxima Calon atque Egesias,
jam minus rigida Calamis, molliora adhuc supra dictis Myron fe-
cit. Diligentia ac decor in Polyclcto supra ca:tcros," &c, which
passage may be thus rendered in English,
' There is the same difference in statues, those made by Calon
and Hegesias are harder, and come near the Tuscan manner:
those of Calamis have less rigidity; and those of Myron have
yet greater tenderness and delicacy; the works of Polycletus
surpass the others in being highly finished, and in comeliness of
form, &c. What is wanting in Polycletus, may be found in Phi-
dias and Alcamenes, yet Phidias is accounted a better artist at
representing gods than men. In works of ivory, however, he is
far beyond all rivalship, had he even performed nothing more
than the Minerva at Athens, or the Olympian Jupiter at Elis
the beauty of which seems to have added something even to the
established devotion of those days; to such a degree did the ma-
jesty of the work correspond with that of the god.' By this it is
plain, that Quintilian, who must have seen the best Tuscan sta-
tues, thought them inferior to those of Calon and Hegesias, the
most unskilful of all the Grecian artists he has instanced. We
may likewise observe that when Pliny says, the art of casting
figures in brass was very ancient in Italy, he wonders at the same
time that the images of the gods, which were dedicated in tem-
ples, were chiefly of wood or clay, till after the conquest of Asia,
from whence luxury took its rise. Book XXXIV. Chap. VII.
So that neither the materials nor the workmanship of the Tuscan
statues in Rome, might compare with those of Greece.
Let us now consider the ancient architecture of Italy. If we
compare the Tuscan column and its entablature with any of the
Grecian Orders, it will hardly appear necessary to attempt a proof
of its inferior elegance in what regards the particular mouldings,
and ornaments. In the general appearance, and the effect of the
whole, a Tuscan building might nevertheless be noble and mag-
nificent. That this however was not the case, but that, on the
contrary, these buildings were low, and their columns too far dis-
tant from each other, which is the reverse of magnificence, we
may learn from Vitruvius (Book III. Chap. II.), where he be-
stows this censure on them, and appropriates the meanest spe-
cies of intcrcolumniation to the Tuscan temples. He afterwards
(Book IV. Chap. VII.) delivers the necessary precepts for the
construction of these temples; and it must be confessed that co-
lumns set at so great a distance from each other, with architraves
of wood, and supporting a pediment of extraordinary height, the
tympanum of which is of brick or wood, are particulars in his
description, which do not convey an advantageous idea of Tuscan
Architecture, or of the pristine magnificence of Rome. The
temple of Ceres near the Circus Maximus is one of the Tuscan ex-
amples which Vitruvius cites. We may therefore suppose, that it
[eh.]
11
power for a considerable space of time, and distinguished themselves by a pre-eminence and univer-
sality of genius, unknown to other ages and nations.
During this happy period, their most renowned artists were produced. Sculpture and Archi-
tecture attained their highest degree of excellence at Athens in the time of Periclesa, when Phidias
distinguished himself with such superior ability that his works were considered as wonders by the An-
cients, so long as any knowledge or taste remained among them. His statue of Jupiter Olympius b,
we are told was never equalled"; and it was under his inspection that many of the most celebrated
buildings of Athens were erected". Several artists of most distinguished talents were his contempo-
raries, among whom we may reckon Callimachus, an Athenian, the inventor of the Corinthian Capital.
After this, a succession of excellent painters, sculptors and architects appeared, and these arts conti-
nued in Greece at their highest perfection till after the death of Alexander the Great.
Painting, sculpture and architecture, it should be observed, remained all that time in a very rude
and imperfect state among the Italiansc.
a'Ofs TrXii'a-Triv fxsv vrfowv tgcTs AS^vai? *** xi<7{j.o-j 'r]v<yy.s, jA-Eyia-rm dl
Trjv AsyojUEVflv ovvafU'J awns ly.dvws Ktti tov TraXcctov oX(3ov} r, rcHy ccvavr}ti.GCTuy
xatao-xivi. ' But that which was the chief delight and ornament
of Athens, and the astonishment of strangers, was the magnifi-
cence of the temples and public buildings that he [.Pericles]
erected; these alone are a sufficient proof that the accounts
which are given of the power and wealth of Ancient Greece are
not fabulous.' Plutarch in the life of Pericles.
b In a recent and splendid work by that distinguished French
writer on art, Quatremere de Quincy, entitled, " Le Jupiter
Olympien, ou l'art de la Sculpture Antique considere sous un
nouvel point de vue, Fol. Paris, 1815", the author, besides illus-
trating the description of various monuments of the heroic and
Homeric ages, with singular taste and ingenuity, enters on the
investigation of the mechanical construction of the wonderful co-
lossal productions in ivory and gold wrought by Phidias, [ed.]
0 Phidias simulacris nihil in illo genere perfeetius videmus.
' We see nothing more perfect in that kind than the statues of
Phidias.' Cicero in his Brutus.
Phidias prater Jovem Olympium, quern nemo femulatur, &c.
' Phidias besides the statue of Jupiter Olympius which nobody
has rivalled, made also that of Minerva,' &c. Pliny, Book
XXXIV. Chap. VIII. In which work are many other passages
in praise of Phidias. See likewise V. Maximus, Book III. Chap.
VII. the fourth foreign example1. Many other authors might be
cited to the same purpose.
x.a> xagirt, ray %r,[Uov^yuv u^Wupivuv virz^ftx.'xiaQcu Tr,v ^y^jov^yiixv t>j
y.a\?\iT£^vlxy fj.ccXn7ra va.V[j.a.aiov yiv T(j t^oj, jc.t.A. Tlccwa. Ts ^iutte xat
7TCCVTW iiriay.oTroi; vv cevru <t>E^/a£, y.cci roi jj.=ya\ov<; a^^iTiy.romi; l^ovTolv
km Ts^i'-ra; tm cgyur. ' These structures [of Pericles] stately as
they were in magnitude, and inimitable for their graceful form
and elegance (every artificer being ambitious that the diligence
of the workmanship might surpass the beauty of the design) were
yet more wonderful for the speed with which they were accom-
plished ; &c. It was Phidias who had the direction and super-
intendance of all these works for him [Tor Pericles], although
great architects and excellent workmen were employed in erect-
ing them.' Plutarch in the life of Pericles.
c It may here be objected, perhaps, that the ancient inhabit-
ants of Tuscany had applied themselves to these arts, and had
made no inconsiderable progress in them ; especially in sculpture
and architecture.
The Tuscans indeed seem to have been the best artists of an-
cient Italy, and it must be granted, that the art of casting figures
in brass was very ancient among them. Of these figures a suffi-
cient number are still remaining, to shew what degree of merit
we may assign to their authors. Many prints copied from them
have been published by the learned Dr. Gori, by that great orna-
ment of his country and of the present age, Count Caylus, and
by others. They all perfectly justify Quintilian in the judge-
1 De Fiducia sui, Exemp. in Externis, iv. ' Phidias,—interrogatus ab amico,
quonain mentem suam dirigens, vultum Jovis propemodum ex ipso ccelo petitum,
eboris lineamentis esset ampkxus: illis se versibusquasi magistvis usirai respondit: —
ment die made concerning the Tuscan statues, when illustrating
the several kinds of eloquence, and the gradual improvement of
the oratorial art, by examples taken from painting and sculp-
ture, he says (Book XII. Chap. X.), " Similis in statuis differen-
tia. Nam duriora, et Tuscanicis proxima Calon atque Egesias,
jam minus rigida Calamis, molliora adhuc supra dictis Myron fe-
cit. Diligentia ac decor in Polyclcto supra ca:tcros," &c, which
passage may be thus rendered in English,
' There is the same difference in statues, those made by Calon
and Hegesias are harder, and come near the Tuscan manner:
those of Calamis have less rigidity; and those of Myron have
yet greater tenderness and delicacy; the works of Polycletus
surpass the others in being highly finished, and in comeliness of
form, &c. What is wanting in Polycletus, may be found in Phi-
dias and Alcamenes, yet Phidias is accounted a better artist at
representing gods than men. In works of ivory, however, he is
far beyond all rivalship, had he even performed nothing more
than the Minerva at Athens, or the Olympian Jupiter at Elis
the beauty of which seems to have added something even to the
established devotion of those days; to such a degree did the ma-
jesty of the work correspond with that of the god.' By this it is
plain, that Quintilian, who must have seen the best Tuscan sta-
tues, thought them inferior to those of Calon and Hegesias, the
most unskilful of all the Grecian artists he has instanced. We
may likewise observe that when Pliny says, the art of casting
figures in brass was very ancient in Italy, he wonders at the same
time that the images of the gods, which were dedicated in tem-
ples, were chiefly of wood or clay, till after the conquest of Asia,
from whence luxury took its rise. Book XXXIV. Chap. VII.
So that neither the materials nor the workmanship of the Tuscan
statues in Rome, might compare with those of Greece.
Let us now consider the ancient architecture of Italy. If we
compare the Tuscan column and its entablature with any of the
Grecian Orders, it will hardly appear necessary to attempt a proof
of its inferior elegance in what regards the particular mouldings,
and ornaments. In the general appearance, and the effect of the
whole, a Tuscan building might nevertheless be noble and mag-
nificent. That this however was not the case, but that, on the
contrary, these buildings were low, and their columns too far dis-
tant from each other, which is the reverse of magnificence, we
may learn from Vitruvius (Book III. Chap. II.), where he be-
stows this censure on them, and appropriates the meanest spe-
cies of intcrcolumniation to the Tuscan temples. He afterwards
(Book IV. Chap. VII.) delivers the necessary precepts for the
construction of these temples; and it must be confessed that co-
lumns set at so great a distance from each other, with architraves
of wood, and supporting a pediment of extraordinary height, the
tympanum of which is of brick or wood, are particulars in his
description, which do not convey an advantageous idea of Tuscan
Architecture, or of the pristine magnificence of Rome. The
temple of Ceres near the Circus Maximus is one of the Tuscan ex-
amples which Vitruvius cites. We may therefore suppose, that it
[eh.]