Neftor gave the gold to this workman, who immediately reduced it into very thin plates. He afterwards wrapped thefe plates about the horns of the heifer . We do not remark in this proceeding any thing that could make us believe that the Greeks then knew the art of gilding, as they knew it afterwards, and fuch as we practise at this time. There is no mention neither of glue, nor of the white of an egg, nor oil, nor glutinous earth, nor, in a word, any ingredient proper to keep the gold on the horns of the victim. The manner in which they gilded then, confifted in covering with plates of gold extremely thin, the things to which they would give the colour and the brilliancy of that metal. Homer does not furnish us with any other lights about the working of metals in Greece for the times we are fpeaking of at prefent. Let us go to fculpture. This art had been a long time unknown to the Greeks. We may judge of this by the manner in which they an ciently reprefented the divinities whom they adored. Their images were then of simple posts or large ftones; often even of pikes dreffed in a particular manner ‹. The idol of Juno, fo revered among the Argives, was, in the early times, only a piece of plank, a piece of wood worked very rudely. I could cite many other examples, which I omit for the fake of brevity. The idols of the Laplanders, of the Samoyedes, and the other people fituated towards the extremities of the North, bring back to us the image of the groffnefs and ignorance of the ancient inhabitants of Greece. It is probably from Egypt that thefe people had re b Odyss. 1. 3. v. 432. &c. This is the fenfe of the verb gixiw, ufed in all this description. Lucan. Pharf. 1. 3. v. 412. &c.; Juftin. 1. 43. c. 3.; Clem. Alex. in protrept. p. 40. & 41.; Strom. 1. 1. p. 418.; Plut. t. 2. p. 478. A.; Paus. 1. 2. c. 9. 1. 7. c. 22. 1. 9. c. 24. & 27.; Tertullian. apolog. c. 16. p. 16. ; A Nation. 1. 1. c. 12. p. 49. Pauf. 1. 2. c. 19.; Clem. Alex. in protrept. p. 45. relig. t. 6. p. 71. & 81. Nord, t. 8. p. 193. & 410; Hik. gen. des cerem. ceived their first knowledge in fculpture. We may refer this epoch to Cecrops. In effect, this first fovereign of the Athenians had paffed in antiquity for having introduced into the temples of Greece the ufe of images. The Athenians fhewed, in the time of Paufanias, a ftatue of wood reprefenting Minerva, which, they faid, had been given by Cecrops. The works of fculpture which the Greeks made for fome time, favoured too much of the Egyptian manner. Without tafte and knowledge, their fculptors contented themfelves at firft with following the models which had been presented to them ». The reader has not forgot what I have faid in the firft part of this work on the taste of Egyptian ftatues. We find again the fame defects in thofe of the ancient Greek fculptors. They were for the moft part fquared figures, having the arms hanging down and joined to the body, the legs and feet joined one against the other, without gefture and without attitude. The Greeks at first still imitated the taste of the Egyptians for gigantic figures!. Scalpture remained long in this ftate among the Greeks. They reckon more than 300 years from Cecrops to the ages in which they make Dædalus live. It was then that the Greek artists began to recognise the deformities and the want of agreeableness in the ancient ftatues. They thought they could make better. Dædalus, (that is to fay, the fculptors who appeared in the ages in which they placed that artift), in copying the Egyptian models, did not flick to them fervilely. They tried to correct the defects, and they fucceeded at least in part. Nature was the model which they propofed. The face and the eyes of ancient ftatutes had no expreffion. The artists of whom I speak Eufeb. chron. I. 2. p. 55.; Pracpar. evan. 1. 10. c. 9. p. 486.; Ifidor. orig. 1. 8. c. 11.p. 69. & L. 1. c. 27. See alfo Eufeb. praep. evang. 1. ro. c. 9. p. 486. h See Diod. 1. 1. p. 109. 1 Book 2. chap. 5. * Diod. 1. 4. p. 319.; Palaephat. de incred. c. 22.; Scaliger, in Eufeb. chron. p. 45. Strabo, 1. 17. p. 1159.; Pauf. 1. 30. c. 19. p. 257. VOL. II. Ff Audied studied to give it them. They detached from the body the arms and the legs, put them in action, and gave them various attitudes. Their ftatues appeared with graces which they had not yet feen in these fort of works. They were fo ftruck at it, that antiquity faid of the ftatues of Dædalus, that they appeared animated, moved and walked of themfelves"; exaggerations which fhew the happy change which was then made in the Greek sculpture.. Although there was great difference between these new productions and the ancient ones, they were ftill very far from that degree of perfection to which the Greeks afterwards carried fculpture. I think that the works of Dædalus, fo boasted of in antiquity, owed the greateft part of their reputation to the groffness and ignorance of the age in which they appeared. This is the judgment which Plato has given us of them. Our sculptors, fays he, would make themselves ridiculous, if they made at present statues in the taste of those of Dedalus P. Paufanias, who had feen many of them, confeffes that they were shocking, that the proportions were too large and coloffal 1. After having fhewn the origin of fculpture among the Greeks, and its ftate in the ages we are at present employed about, it remains to examine the materials that thefe people then used for their ftatues. We have seen, that the first works which were made in relief were of burnt clay. They learned afterwards to handle the chifel, and began to try it on wood. This is the only folid matter that the Greeks knew how to work for a long time. All the hiftorians agree, in faying, that the an m Diod.l. 4. p. 319.; Eufeb. chron. 1. 2. p. 88.; Suid voce ▲aidaλ8-πońμata, t. 1. p. 514.; Scaliger, in Eufeb. chron. p. 45. "See Plat. in Maenone, p, 426.; In Entyphron. paffim; Arift. de anima. 1. 1. c. 3. t. 1. p. 622.; De repub. 1. 1. c. 4. t. 2. p. 299. ° Diod. I. 4. p. 319.; Palaephat. de incred. c. 22. p. 29.; Euseb. chron. 1. 2. p. 88. In Hipp. Maj. p. 1245. L. 2. c. 4.1.3. C. 19. Supra, p. 221. cient statues, and even those attributed to Dædalus, were . of wood. We find, it is true, in fome authors, certain traditions which feem to declare, that, before the war of Troy, the Greeks had known the art of fculpture in ftone ", and even in marble *. But I have already explained myfelf on these fort of teftimonies. I think we ought not to regard them when they are not fupported by the fuffrage of Homer. Statues of ftone are never mentioned in his poems. With respect to marble, I have fhewn, that, according to all appearances, this poet had not even known ity. The art of throwing of metals into fufion to make ftatues of them, was equally unknown to the Greeks in the heroic ages. This fecret muft only have been known and practifed very lately. Paufanias alfo regarded as fuppofititious, the ftatues of copper run at one caft, which they attributed to Ulyffes. We shall readily adopt his fentiment, if we reflect on the measures and extraordinary precautions they must take to fucceed in fuch works. The Greeks furely were not then in a capacity to undertake them, and less ftill to execute them. Yet if we believe the fame author, these people then had ftatues of copper. This is the manner in which he pretends the Greeks executed them. They made, fays he, a ftatue fucceffively and by pieces. They ran feparately and one after the other, the different parts which compofe a figure. They afterwards collected them and joined them together with nails. They repaired the whole without doubt with a chifel. The equeftrian ftatue of Marcus Aurelius in the capitol is executed in this tafte ». However imperfect this practice be, I yet think it was unknown to the Greeks in the ages we are at prefent upon. Plin. 1. 22. fect. 2, p. 654.; Pauf, 1. 1. c. 27. 1. 2. c. 17. 19, 22, 25, 1.8. c. 17.; Plut. apud Euseb, praep. evan. 1. 3. c. 8. p. 99. t Diod. 1. 1. p. 109.; Pauf. 1. 2, c. 4. 1. 8. c. 35. l. 9. c. 11. Supra. p. 226.. a L. 8. c. 14. 1. 3. c. 17. We perhaps might be authorifed from fome paffages of Homer to fupport the fentiment of Paufanias. This poet, for example, fays that one fees on each fide of the gate of Alcinous two dogs of gold and filver, which Vulcan had made a prefent of to that prince. He places in the fame edifice, ftatues of gold representing young boys who held in their hand torches which they lighted to light the dining-room. Honer farther makes a wonderful defcription of the two fiaves of gold which Vulcan had forged to accompany him, and affift him in his work . But we must remark, first, that it is to a god that the poet attributes thefe uncommon works. Let us obferve afterwards, that it is in Afia that he places them. The mar vellous, moreover, which he puts in this whole description, does not permit us to believe, that he had had in view any thing like, or even approaching to what he there speaks of. We should range thefe paffages among the number of fictions which poets ufe fometimes to furprife and amuse the reader. We might even go further. I think we may perceive a very fentible relation between thefe flaves of gold of Vulcan who walk, think, and affift the god in his work, and what they gave out anciently in Greece about the ftatues of Dædalus. It was, by what appears, one of these popular opinions to which the greatest geniufes feem to pay homage. I do not think then, that we can conclude any thing of the true tafte of fculpture among the Greeks in the ages of which we now fpeak. In general, I am perfuaded that they had then very few ftatues in Greece. Homer does not put any in the palaces of the Greek princes of whom he had occafion to fpeak, nor in any other place. I shall add, that he even has not in his writings particular terms to design a statue *. © Odyff. 1, 7. v. 92. &ċ. e Iliad. 1. 18. v. 417, &c. * See fupra, chap. 1. p. 84. & See p. 225. * Homer never makes ufes but of the term yapa; he even ufes that expreffion to mark in general all forts of ornaments. It was only afterwards, that the Greck writers reftrained the fignification of the word ayahua, and confecrated it to defign Ratues. See Feith, antiq. Hom. I. 1. c, 4. p. 31. We |