ed. Let us read attentively the text of Homer, we shall fee that he never had in view any thing but a piece of goldfmiths work; and what he fays of the diverfity of colours, might be perfectly explained either by the action of the fire upon the metals, or by their mixture and their oppofition. We cannot even fufpect that he meant fhadings, degradations, and union of colours, nothing, in a word, that conftitutes the effence of painting. There is nothing, for example, in the manner in which Homer describes a vine ingraved on the shield, which could not be given by the mixture of metals, and by the colour the action of the fire is capable of imprinting on them: the ftems were gold, the dark grapes were of imbrowned fteel, and the, props of filver 2. But we must observe, that the poet does not fpeak of the leaves of this vine. If he had entered into that detail, he muft neceffarily have faid they were green; and that is what Homer has not done; he has left us to understand that the stems adorned with their leaves were of gold. This obfervation fhould be applied to the whole defcription of the shield of Achilles: no place acquaints us that this poet had an intention to defign red colours, blue, green, &c. The action of the fire, and the mixture of metals, is not fufficient to give these colours: we muft ufe for thefe forts of effects metallic colours, that is to fay, paint in enamel, a fecret which certainly must have been unknown at that time. We even fee that all the perfonages which Homer had occafion to put in this composition are of gold, even to shepherds who conduct a `flock b. Lastly, even agreeing that the veils of which Homer fpeaks were fhaded with different colours, and that the objects painted on the fhield of Achilles indicate mixtures of dyes and colours diverfified; the antiquity of painting does not appear to me more folidly eftablished. To fay that z Iliad. 1. 18. v. 561. &c. VOL. II. Iliad. 1.18. v. 517. b Ibid. v. 577. the the art of embroidery had not been invented, but to imitate the art of painting, is a notion without any foundation. How do they know that in dying of wool, and in making use of different colours to embroider ftuffs, the intention of the first men had been to copy painting? The end which they propofed in all times had been to imitate nature: painting itself was not invented but for this purpose. But, add they, it is more eafy to reprefent objects by the help of colours and a pencil, than by any other means. I agree to it this reafon nevertheless is not more convincing; I appeal to experience. It teaches us, that in the arts they have often begun with the most difficult proceffes before they attained to the most fimple and the most easy. The proof that Homer never had in view painting, properly fo called, and that he even did not know it, is, that the terms confecrated in the Greek language to defign this art*, are not to be found in his writings. Pliny has even remarked that this poet very seldom speaks of colours. If painting had been in use in the times that Homer lived, can we believe that he would have neglected to speak of so admirable an invention, he who was fo particularly attached to describe the arts? We may add, that we fee no pictures † in the palace he is pleased to defcribe, although he puts there ftatues and other ornaments of chafing and ingraving.. They knew, certainly, if I may be allowed the term, to daub wood and other things of fome colour. The Greeks at the time of the war of Troy used to paint their veffels red, and yet that colour at that time was very imperfect. The * гpaper and (wypapos, which are often found in authors who have written fince Homer. Zwypapos is neither in the Iliad nor in the Odyffee. If we there fee the word ypaper, it is not in the acceptation of painting. It never fignifies in Homer but to reprefent, to defcribe an object. L. 33. fect. 38. p. 624. Virgil has not been fo circumfpect. He puts pictures in the temple of Carthage. Æneas finds himself among the heroes who were painted there. ----- Animum pictura páfcit inani. Æneid. 1. 1. v. 464. &c. But this is not the only occafion where, as I have already remarked, Virgif has not been afraid to offend against cuflom; I fhall cite many examples of it in the fequel. 4 Iliad. 1. 2. B. v. 144. • See Theophraft, de lapid. p. 400.; Plin. 1.33. fect. 37. p. 624. foot foot of the table which Neftor ufed, was also covered with fome colour. But fhall we give the name of painting to fuch fort of works? It is the mixture, the union, and the oppofition of colours, or even the different fhades of the fame colour, these are the reflections, the fhades, and the lights which conftitute the art of painting. The reft is only plaistering. It is fufficient to caft our eyes on hiftory, to be convinced that painting was unknown to the ages we are at prefent fpeaking of. A croud of monuments atteft the frequent use they made at that time of carving, of chafing, and of fculpture. Nothing like it, nor even approaching to it, with refpect to painting. There reigns on this fubject the moft profound and moft general filence. The scripture, which speaks of fo many forts of arts, which forbids fo exprefsly every representation tending to idolatry, fays nothing of painting. Laftly, the teftimony of an author who has great knowledge of antiquity, decides it in favour of the fentiment which I have embraced. Pliny affirms, that the art of painting was not yet invented at the time of the war of Troy; and he appears not to have been determined till after having examined this question very attentively. Want of attention and the defect of not having fufficiently reflected on the effence of painting, has made them fall into many mistakes with relation to the origin and epoch of this art. Most authors who have treated on this fubject, have always confounded design with painting; and because they knew to defign in the most ancient times, they have concluded that they also knew the art of painting, in fpite of the effential difference there is between the practice of one and the other. This is, I believe, the fource of all the errors which have been propagated about the epoch of painting. They would never distinguish the art of designing from that of painting. I imagine I have faid enough to fhew that f Iliad. 1. 11. v. 628. I fay of fome colour, for we must know that there is no agreement about the fort of colour that Homer means by the term Kúavos, which he uses on many occafions. L. 35. fect. 6. p. 683. Y 2 painting painting was not known in the ages which make the second part of my work; but that it was even pofterior to Homer. WE SECTION II. Of the ftate of arts in Greece. E find very few lights in the history of the Egyptians and the people of Afia on the progrefs of the arts. It is not eafy to perceive thefe different degrees, that fucceffive progreffion which ought neceffarily to prove all that enters into thefe kind of difcoveries and inventions. It is not then in the hiftory of the oriental nations that we must ftudy the progrefs of the human mind. It does not fhew itself fufficiently: the gradations are not fenfible enough, for want of monuments and historical details. The Greeks will furnish us with many more resources. We are fufficiently inftructed in the state in which the arts had been fucceffively in the different ages which composed the hiftory of that nation. From the moment in which these people began to emerge from their barbarity, to the time in which they finished their history, we may confider their progress, and follow the order and the thread of their knowledge. We fhall eafily difcover in the hiftory of the arts among the Greeks, the different degrees by which these people were raised fucceffively from the moft grofs practices to the most fublime difcoveries. Fables, it is true, have greatly altered the first monuments of the hiftory of Greece. There reign many contradictions about the time and about the authors of the firft inventions. We cannot depend on the facts but to a certain degree. Yet, in spite of the obfcurity and uncertainty which a tradition not much to be depended upon, has fpread over the times which we are now going to run o ver, with fome attention and the affiftance of criticism, we are able to clear up the truth of a great number of events; we we there perceive in general a certain connection, a certain order, which does not permit us to throw them into the rank of those traditions totally void of historical foundations. In combining, in bringing together many facts, many circumstances, we may fucceed to form a very exact idea of the origin and of the progrefs of arts in Greece. There are few arts of which the Greeks can boast to have been the inventors. They had received them, for the most part, from Egypt and Afia. But the point of perfection to which these people had carried the discoveries which other nations had imparted to them, fufficiently recompenfes for the merit of the invention. We owe to Greece, the taste, the elegance, and all the beauties, in a word, of which the arts are capable. We may yet fay that the progrefs of the arts had been flow among the Greeks. From the firft ages after the deluge we fee pomp and magnificence reign in Afia and in Egypt. Nothing of this kind in Greece. Inftead of those grand works, instead of those works equally magnificent and finished, with which we were entertained at this time, we are going to see nothing but the moft fimple objects, grofs practices proportioned to the little knowledge that a nation must have in the arts, which only just began to emerge from barbarity, and to be polished. L CHA P. I. Of Agriculture. ET us recollect in a few words what I have already faid elsewhere of the ancient ftate of Greece. We have there seen that the first inhabitants of that country were plunged into the darkness of the moft grofs and most found ignorance. They were, to fpeak properly, real favages running in the woods, without a chief and without difcipline, fierce to the degree of eating each other; ig Part 1. book 1. chap. 1. art. 5. pro norant |