Anecdotes of Painters, Engravers, Sculptors and Architects and Curiosities of Art (Vol. 3 of 3) by S. Spooner (best ebook reader under 100 TXT) 📖

the beaten track of his cast, without the least deviation from

established rules, thus chaining down genius, and the stimulus of

emulation, honor, renown and reward. When Egypt passed under the

dominion of the Ptolemys, she made rapid progress in art, and produced

some excellent painters, sculptors, and architects, though doubtless

they were mostly of Greek origin. It is related of Ptolemy Philopator,

that he sent a hundred architects to rebuild Rhodes, when it was

destroyed by an earthquake. See vol. iii., page 1, of this work.

 

 

 

 

PAINTING AMONG THE GREEKS.

 

 

The origin of Painting in Greece was unknown to Pliny, to whom we are

chiefly indebted for the few fragments of the biography of Greek

artists; he could only obtain his information from Greek writers, of

whom he complains that they have not been very attentive to their

accustomed accuracy. It is certain, however, that the arts were

practiced in Egypt and in the East, many ages before they were known in

Greece, and it is the common opinion that they were introduced into that

country from Egypt and Asia, through the channel of the Phoenecian

traders. It has been a matter of admiration that the Greeks, in the

course of three or four centuries, should have attained such perfection

in every species of art that ennobles the human mind, as oratory,

poetry, music, painting, sculpture, and architecture. Two things explain

the cause--freedom of action, and certainty of reward. This is

exemplified in the whole history of the arts and sciences. The ancient

eastern nations, among whom the freedom of thought and action was

forbidden, and every man obliged to follow the trade of his caste, never

made any progress; nor will the moderns progress in those countries

till caste is done away, and every man allowed to follow the

inclinations of his genius.

 

The Greeks were favored with a climate the most congenial for the

perfect development of the mental and physical powers, and beauty of

form. Every man was at liberty freely to follow his favorite pursuits.

They rewarded all who excelled in anything that was useful or beautiful,

and that with a lavish hand. The prices they paid their great artists

were truly astonishing; in comparison to which, the prices paid to the

greatest artists of modern times are small. Nor was this so great an

incentive as the admiration and the caresses they received. The man of

genius was sure of immortality and wealth. Their academic groves and

their games were the admiration and resort of all the surrounding

countries. They decreed statues to their great men who deserved well of

their country. To other powerful incentives, the Greek artists had the

advantage of the best models before them, in their gymnastic exercises

and public games, where the youth contended for the prize quite naked.

The Greeks esteemed natural qualities so highly that they decreed the

first rewards to those who distinguished themselves in feats of agility

and strength. Statues were often raised to wrestlers. Not only the first

youth of Greece, but the sons of kings and princes sought renown in the

public games and gymnastic exercises. Chrysippus and Cleanthus

distinguished themselves in these games before they were known as

philosophers. Plato appeared as a wrestler both at the Isthmian and

Pythian games; and Pythagoras carried off the prize at Elis. The passion

which inspired them was glory--the ambition of having statues erected to

their memory, in the most sacred place in Greece, to be admired by the

whole people.

 

Although it is universally admitted that the Greeks carried sculpture

and architecture to such a state of perfection that they have never been

equalled by the moderns, except in imitating them, yet there is a great

contrariety of opinion among the most eminent modern writers as to their

success in painting; some, full of admiration for the works of antiquity

which have descended to us, have not hesitated to declare that the

Greeks must have been equally successful in painting, while others,

professing that we possess colors, vehicles, and science (as the

knowledge of foreshortening, perspective, and of the chiaro-scuro)

unknown to them, have as roundly asserted that they were far inferior to

the moderns in this branch, and that their pictures, could we now see

them in all their beauty, would excite our contempt. Much of this

boasted modern knowledge is, however, entirely gratuitous; the Greeks

certainly well understood foreshortening and perspective, as we have

abundance of evidence in their works, to say nothing of these being

expressly mentioned by Pliny, and that it is impossible to execute any

work of excellence without them. This erroneous opinion has sprung from

the ignorance and imperfections of _the old fathers_ of Italian art in

these particulars, and the discoveries and perfections of those more

modern. If the moderns possess any advantages over the ancients, it is

that chemistry has invented some beautiful colors unknown to them, the

invention of oil painting, and that illusion which results from a

perfect acquaintance with the principles of the chiaro-scuro; but even

here the mineral colors--the most valuable and permanent--were well

known to them; and if they had not oil colors, they had a method of

_encaustic painting_ not positively known to us, which might have

answered as good a purpose--nor are we sure they did not practice the

chiaro-scuro. Besides, the most renowned modern masters were more

celebrated in fresco than in oil painting, and the ancients well

understood painting in fresco.

 

In this, as in most other disputes, it may reasonably be presumed, that

a just estimation of both will be found between the extremes. In

comparing the paintings of the moderns with those of the ancients, it

may be fairly inferred that the latter surpassed the former in

expression, in purity of design, in attitude of the figures, and in

ideal beauty. The moderns have doubtless surpassed the ancients in the

arrangement of their groups, in perspective, foreshortening and

chiaro-scuro--and in coloring. For a further disquisition on this

subject, see Vol. I. p. 22, of this work, article Apelles.

 

 

 

 

NUMISMATICS.

 

 

Numismatics is the science which has for its object the study of coins

and medals, especially those struck by the ancient Greeks and Romans.

The word is derived from the Greek [Greek: nomisma], or the Latin

_numus_, _coin or medal_. Numismatics is now regarded as indispensable

to archæology, and to a thorough acquaintance of the fine arts; it is

also of great assistance in philology and the explanation of the ancient

classics; it appears to have been entirely unknown to the ancients, but

since the middle of the sixteenth century, it has occupied the attention

of many learned men.

 

The name of _coins_ is given to pieces of metal, on which the public

authority has impressed different marks to indicate their weight and

value, to make them a convenient medium of exchange. By the word

_medals_, when used in reference to modern times, is understood pieces

of metal similar to coins but not intended as a medium of exchange, but

struck and distributed to commemorate some important event, or in memory

of some distinguished personage. The name of medals, however, is also

given to all pieces of money which have remained from ancient times. The

term _medallion_ is given to medals of a very large size, many of them

being several inches in diameter. The parts of a coin or medal are the

two sides; first, the _obverse_ side, face or head, which contains the

portrait of the person at whose command or in whose honor it was

struck, or other figures relating to him: this portrait consists either

of the head alone, or the bust, half length, or full figure; second, the

_reverse_ contains mythological, allegorical, or historical figures. The

words around the border form the _legend_, and those in the middle the

_inscription_. The lower part of the coin, which is separated by a line

from the figures or the inscription, is the _basis_ or _exergue_, and

contains subsidiary matter, as the date, the place where the piece was

struck, etc.

 

Numismatics has the same divisions as history.--Ancient Numismatics

extends to the extinction of the empire of the West; the Numismatics of

the middle ages commences with Charlemagne; and modern Numismatics with

the revival of learning.

 

Medals indicate the names of provinces and cities, determine their

position, and present pictures of many celebrated places. They fix the

period of events, frequently determine their character, and enable us to

trace the series of kings. They also enable us to learn the different

metallurgical processes, the different alloys, the modes of gilding and

plating practiced by the ancients, the metals which they used, their

weight and measures, their different modes of reckoning, the names and

titles of the various kings and magistrates, and also their portraits,

their different divinities, with their attributes and titles, the

utensils and ceremonies of their worship, the costume of their

priests--in fine, everything which relates to their usages, civil,

military, and religious. Medals also acquaint us with the history of

art. They contain representations of several celebrated works of

antiquity which have been lost, the value of which may be estimated from

the ancient medals of those still existing, as the Farnese Hercules,

Niobe and her Children, the Venus of Gnidos, etc. Like gems and statues,

they enable us to trace the epochs of different styles of art, to

ascertain its progress among the most civilized nations, and its

condition among the rude.

 

The ancient medals were struck or cast; some were first cast and then

struck. The first coins of Rome and other cities of Italy must have been

cast, as the hammer could not have produced so bold a relief. The copper

coins of Egypt were cast. The right of coining money has always been one

of the privileges which rulers have confined to themselves. The free

cities have inscribed only their names on their coins. The cities

subject to kings sometimes obtained permission to strike money in their

own name, but were most frequently required to add the name or image of

the king to whom they were subject. The medals of the Parthians and the

Phoenecians offer many examples of this sort. Rome, under the

republic, allowed no individual the right to coin money; no magistrate

could put his name thereon, though this honor was sometimes allowed, as

a special favor, by a decree of the Senate. We can count as numismatic

countries only those into which the Greeks and Romans carried the use

of money; though some of the oriental nations used gold and silver as a

medium of exchange, before their time it was by weight. The people in

the northern part of Europe had no money.

 

The coins preserved from antiquity are estimated to be more numerous

than those we possess from the middle ages, in the proportion of a

hundred to one! Millin thinks that the number of extant ancient medals

amounts to 70,000! What a fund of the most curious and authentic

information do they contain, and what a multitude of errors have been

corrected by their means! There are valuable cabinets of medals in all

the principal cities of Europe; that of Paris is by far the richest;

Pillerin alone added to it 33,000 ancient coins and medals. The coins of

the kings of Macedon are the most ancient of any yet discovered having

portraits; and Alexander I., who commenced his reign about B.C. 500, is

the earliest monarch whose medals have yet been found. Then succeed the

sovereigns who reigned in Sicily, Caria, Cyprus, Heraclea, and Pontus.

Afterwards comes the series of kings of Egypt, Syria, the Cimmerian

Bosphorus, Thrace, Parthia, Armenia, Damascus, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia,

Pergamos, Galatia, Cilicia, Sparta Pæonia, Epirus, Illyricum, Gaul, and

the Alps. This series reaches from the time of Alexander the Great to

the Christian Era, comprising a period of about 330 years. A perfect

and distinct series is formed by the Roman emperors, from the time of

Julius Cæsar to the destruction of the empire, and even still later. The

Grecian medals claim that place in a cabinet, from their antiquity,

which their workmanship might ensure them, independently of that

advantageous consideration. It is observed by Pinkerton, that an immense

number of the medals of cities, which, from their character, we might

judge to be of the highest antiquity, have a surprising strength,

beauty, and relief in their impressions. About the time of Alexander the

Great, this art appears to have attained its highest perfection. The

coins of Alexander and his father exceed in beauty all that were ever

executed, if we except those of Sicily, Magna Grecia, and the ancient

ones of Asia Minor. Sicilian medals are famous for workmanship, even

from the time of Gelo. The coins of the Syrian kings, successors to

Alexander, almost equal his own in beauty; but adequate judges confine

their high praises of the Greek mint to those coins struck before the

subjection of Greece to the Roman empire. The Roman coins, considered as

medals in a cabinet, may be divided into two great classes--the consular

and the imperial; both are numerous and valuable.