But in rejecting this exceffive number of years, we must examine if the Egyptians had not the knowledge of painting very early; many critics, and fome modern travellers, are of this opinion. Let us examine the teftimonies on which they ground their fentinient. Diodorus, in defcribing the mausoleum of Ofymandes, fays, that the ceiling of that monument was spread over with ftars on a blue ground". We might throw fome doubts on the truth of this fact. Diodorus is the only one who fpeaks of it, and that only from the relation of Hecateus, an author much cried down by the ancients. This testimony appears then at leaft fufpicious. But let it be admitted, what will refult from it? We are ignorant in what time this maufoleum might have been built. Diodorus does not even tell us the age in which the monarch lived whofe afhes it contains. The tomb of Olymandes may be very ancient, and yet have been built in ages pofterior to those we are now examining *. Befides, I fhall afk what inductions we could draw from a fimple laying on of one colour, on which they had probably applied leaves of gold or filver to imitate ftars. In the ruins of those vast palaces fpread in the Upper Egypt, we fee, according to the report of some travellers, antique paintings of a very lively and fhining colour. I will not difpute the truth of thefe relations; but in agreeing that the facts are really true, they prove nothing against the fentiment which I have embraced. Thefe paintings are probably the work of fome Greek artists called into Egypt by the Ptolomeys and their fucceffors. This conje&ture appears to me fo much the better founded, as a modern traveller, defcribing a temple in which he had feen paintings, fays, that the columns that fupported the "L. 1. p. 56. *This is the fentiment of Marfham, p. 403. Voyage du Sayd par deux PP. Capucins, p. 3. & 4. in the collection of relations published by Thevenot, t. 2.; Paul Lucas, t. 3. p. 38. 39. &. 69.; Rec. d'obfervat. curieufes, t. 3. p. 79. 81. 133. 134. 164. 166.; Voyage de Granger, p. 35. 38. 46.47.61. ceiling ceiling were of the Corinthian order. He further observes, in speaking of a palace, which, he believes, made part of the ruins of ancient Thebes, that the chapiters of the columns were of the compofite order, highly finished 1. We are not ignorant that the architecture of the firft Egyptians had no refemblance to any of the five orders which we have from the Greeks and the Romans. Another traveller quotes a Greek infcription found in an ancient palace where he had likewife feen paintings. I think it right to conclude, after thefe facts, that the monuments in queftion were not the work of the ancient inhabitants of Egypt; or, fuppofing that they were, they had been repaired by the Greeks or by the Romans. Thus the paintings which they found there decided nothing for the antiquity of this art in Egypt. Yet they infift, and pretend to prove by the fame pictures, the antiquity of the edifices which contained them. The Perfians, fay they, were for fome time mafters of Egypt. These people were declared enemies to temples, and to all forts of reprefentations; and, by confequence, we cannot attribute to them the paintings which we still fee in the temples and in the palaces of Egypt. Thefe works then must have been executed before the ages in which the Perfians conquered Egypt. I am bold enough to fay, that I fee no fort of confequence in this reafoning. Cambyfes destroyed as much as was poffible for him, the monuments of Egypt: we may conclude from this fact, avowed by all antiquity, that every thing that bore the marks of taste and magnificence, was demolished by this barbarous conqueror. Thus we ought to look upon the palaces and the temples they mention to us as posterior to the invafion of this prince. But fuppofing, what appears to me very probable, that many of these edifices had escaped the fury of this prince, we must remember, Granger, p. 38. & 39. a Ibid. p. 58. Paul Lucas, t. 3. p. 38. 39. 41. & 42. that that the conqueft of Egypt by Cambyfes was only 525 years before Christ. There might then fubfift Egyptian pictures anterior to this monarch, without their date afcending to the ages which we are treating of at prefent. It appears to me much more natural to attribute them to the Greeks. Far from imitating the conduct of the Perfians, these conquerors applied themselves to repair the ancient monuments of Egypt. They enriched them with new ornaments, among which number, I think, we ought to put the pictures which they mention. Let us go on to other teftimonies which they produce to prove, that this art was known in the ages which make the objects of the second part of our work. All is reduced to conjectures, and to inductions drawn from fome paffages of Homer. They cite no pofitive fact: they alledge the veils embroidered by Helen and Andromache, of which I have fpoke before; and fupport their opinion by the description of the fhield of Achilles, and from fome other places of the Iliad and Odyffee. They conclude from these facts combined and united, that painting must have been in ufe at the time of the war of Troy. Are these conjectures well founded, and are these reports really true? That is what we are going to judge of. The partifans of the opinion which I attack begin by fup. pofing, that they could not think to stain wool and embroider ftuffs, but with a view of imitating painting: this proceeding appears,' fay they, very probable: it is more natural and more eafy to reprefent objects by the help of colours and of a pencil, than by means of threads dyed varioufly. The fhaded embroidery could not have been invented till long after painting, of which it seems only to be a laborious imitation: yet we fee that fort of embroidery much in ufe at the time of the war of Troy. The invention of painting is then anterior to that epoch. It is probable, moreover, that to do these works of embroidery, they used, as we do at this time, coloured patterns: this is fufficient to fhew, that they knew to paint, and that that art must have been very common and very extenfive in the heroic ages. They They draw almoft the fame conclufions from the defcription of the fhield of Achilles: they infift upon the great variety of subjects and defigns which have place in that piece; on the art of grouping figures in bas relief from the multiplicity of colours which Homer, they suppose, would have us underftand, that each object was animated with. The different impreffions which the action of the fire leaves on the metals is, fay they, the only way the poet could invent to give and vary the fhades of the colour: this could not have been fuggefted to him but by the fight of fome picture. For, they add, it is not natural to be lieve, that at first they thought of reprefenting the colour of objects by the tinge which the action of the fire might im prefs on metals: every thing, on the contrary, tells us, that they must have begun by using natural colours. The work of Vulcan must only be confidered as an imitation of painting . These are the principal reasonings which they ufe to fupport the antiquity of this art; it must be agreed, that they are very fpecious. Let us try to answer them, keeping in view the definition which I have given of painting: that is an effential point in the prefent queftion. Is it very certain, that in the works of embroidery of which Homer speaks, there were different forts of colours, different flades? I think not; and I dare fay, by examining the force of the terms which the poet ufes, we fhall fee that he means only different figures, and different flowers Spread over the veils embroidered by Helen and Andromache". I do not think they will ever be able to prove, that the expreffions used in thefe paffages mean objects coloured variously *. These designs, to keep close to the text, 'Acad. des infcript. t. 1. H. p. 75. &c.; Madame Dacier in her notes on Homer. Iliad. 1. 3. v. 125. &c.; 1. 22. v. 140. &c. * M. l'Abbé Fraguier, and Mad. Dacier, pretend that the word virαocev, fignifies to reprefent with different colours. But, 1. they do not quote any authority to prove that ivizarov fignifies to represent with different colours. This word, as well as that of warge, which Homer ufes in fpeaking of the veil embroidered by Andromache, mean literally, to Spread, to fow, that is to fay, that there were many figures fpread about in thefe embroideries. The I text, were of one uniform colour, different, without doubt, from the ground on which they were embroidered. do not fee any thing that indicates a mixture of fhadings the figures must have glared on the ground of the embroidery; but the colours which ferved to represent them, were of one and the fame dye: they had no fhadings, no degradation. I embrace this idea fo much the more readily, as in the paffages where Homer speaks of these fort of works, he never makes mention but of wool of one colour. Besides, in the Odyffee, they bring to Helen a basket of bottoms of worsted spun extremely fine v. If it had been then the custom to use different fhadings in embroideries, Homer probably would have given us to understand by fome epithet, that these bottoms were of many colours, and that is what he has not done. In vain then do they imagine patterns painted of different colours, fince it appears certain, that the embroideries of which Homer speaks, were only of one colour. Even the idea of patterns ferving for models appears to me a fuppofition not well fupported. We are ignorant of the manner in which they worked at the time of the war of Troy; and if I might fay what I think, I should believe that they then contented themselves to pounce their defigns on the canvas: but in cafe they think patterns abfolutely neceffary, it must be owned, that they were fimple defigns of one and the fame colour, fuch as they do at this time with a pencil or with ink.. The conclufions which they intend to draw from the fhield of Achilles, do not appear to me to be better found The words 6póva monina which we find used for the veil of Andromache, may admit of great difficulty. I doubt, notwithstanding, whether they can draw any great advantage from them. This is the only time that this expreffion is found in Homer: it is confequently very difficult to fix the fenfe. Yet, as far as we can judge, Homer did not defign flowers of different colours; but rather different fpecies of flowers. We find, it is true, the word wominos used to design objects variously coloured, but that is only in authors greatly pofterior to Homer. They will never prove, that, in the writings of this great poet, this word fhould defign objects coloured variously, * Odyff. 1.4. v. 135. l. 6. v. 53, and 306. 1. 13. v. 1c8. y Ibid. 1. 4. v. 134. ed. |