« ElőzőTovább »
studied to give it them. They detached from the body the arms and the legs, put them in action, and gave them various attitudes m. Their statues appeared with graces which they had not yet feen in these sort of works. They were so ftruck at it, that antiquity faid of the statues of Dædalus, that they appeared animated, moved and walked of them. felves exaggerations which shew 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 still very far from that degree of perfection to which the Greeks afterwards carried sculpture. I think that the works of Dædalus, so boasted of in antiquity, owed the greatest part of their reputation to the grossness and ignorance of the age in which they appeared. This is the judgment which Plato has given us of them. Our sculptors, says he, would make themselves ridiculous, if they made at present statues in the taste of those of Dædalus P. Pausanias, who had seen many of them, confesses that they were shocking, that the proportions were too large and colossal 9.
After having shewn the origin of sculpture among the Greeks, and its state in the ages we are at present employed abont, it remains to examine the materials that these people then used for their statues. We have seen, that the first works which were made in relief were of burnt clay. They learned afterwards to handle the chi- . fel, and began to try it on wood. This is the only solid matter that the Greeks knew how to work for a long time. All the historians agree, in faying, that the an.
m Diod.I. 4. p. 319.; Euseb. chron. 1. 2. p. 88.; Suid voce Aaidon 8-pojate, t. 1. p. 514.; Scaliger, in Eufeb. chron. p. 45.
" See Plat. in Maenone, p. 426. ; In Entyphron. paffim; Arift. de anima, I. 1. C. 3. t. 1.p. 622.; De repub. 1. 1. c.4. t. 2. p. 299.
Diod. 1. 4. p. 319.; Palaephat. de incred. c. 22. p. 29.; Euseb. chron, 1.2.
p In Hipp. Maj. p. 1245. I Supra, p. 221.
5 L. 2, C.4.1. 3. c. 19.
cient statues', and even those attributed to Dædalus, were. of wood.
We find, it is true, in some authors, certain traditions which seem to declare, that, before the war of Troy, the Greeks had known the art of sculpture in stone“, and even in marblex. But I have already explained myself on these sort of testimonies. I think we ought not to regard them when they are not supported by the fuffrage of Homer. Statues of stone are never mentioned in his poems. With respect to marble, I have thewn, that, according to all appearances, this poet had not even known ity.
The art of throwing of metals into fusion to make statues of them, was equally unknown to the Greeks in the heroic ages. This secret must only have been known and praštised very lately. Pausanias also regarded as fuppofititious, the statues of copper run at one cast, which they attributed to Ulysses z. We shall readily adopt his sentiment, if we reflect on the measures and extraordinary precautions they must take to succeed in such works. The Greeks furely were not then in a capacity to undertake them, and less still to execute them. Yet if we believe the same author, these people then had statues of copper. This is the manner in which he pretends the Greeks executed them. They made, says he, a statue successively and by pieces. They ran separately and one after the other, the different parts which compose a figure. They afterwards collected them and joined them together with nails a. They repaired thic ' whole without doubt with a chisel. The equestrian ftatue of Marcus Aurelius in the capitol is executed in this taste ). However imperfect this practice be, I yet think it was unknown to the Greeks in the ages we are at present upon.
Plin. I. 22. sect. 2, p. 654. ; Paus, 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. I. 1. p. 109.; Paus. I. 2. C. 4. 1.8. c. 35. 1. 9. c. 11.
2 L. 8. c. 14.
L. 8. c. 1.4. 1. 3. C. 17.
We perhaps might be authorised from some passages of Homer to support the sentiment of Pausanias. This poet, for example, says that one sees on each side of the gate of Alcinous two dogs of gold and silver, which Vulcan had made a present of to that prince c. He places in the same edifice, Itatues of gold representing young boys who held in their hand torches which they lighted to light the dining-room". Horner farther makes a wonderful description of the two flaves of gold which Vulcan had forged to accompany him, and affift him in his work c.
But we must remark, first, that it is to a god that the poet attributes these uncommon works. Let us, observe afterwards, that it is in Asia that he places them f. The marvellous, 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 these pallages among the number of fictions which poets use sometinies to surprise and amuse the reader. We might even go further. I think we may perceive a very fenfible relation between these flaves of gold of Vul. can who walk, think, and affist the god in his work, and what they gave out anciently in Greece about the statues of Dædalus . It was, by what appears, one of these popullar opinions to which the greatest geniuses seem to pay homage. I do not think then, that we can conclude any thing of the true taste of sculpture among the Greeks in the ages of which we now speak. In general, I am persuaded 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 occasion to speak, nor in any other place. I hall add, that he even las 110t in his writings particular terms to design a statue *,
c dyrt. 1, 7. V. 92. &.
* Llomer never makes uses but of the term vunpes; he even les that expresion to mark in general all sorts of ornamients. It was only afterwards, that the Greck writers restrained the figniücation of the word ärance
, and confecrated it to design ftatues. See Fetis. an.i7. Hom. 1. 1.6. 4. p. 31.
We shall not be surprised that at this time I say nothing of painting. I have discussed that matter extensively enough in treating of the arts which the people of Asia and Egypt could have the knowledge of in the ages which make the object of this second part of my work. I have declared myself for the sentiment of Pliny, who believes the invention of painting posterior to the heroic times. I have nothing new to add to it. The reasons which I have alledged regard the Greeks 'as much and more, than the people of Asia and the Egyptians. I am persuaded that neither one nor the other then knew the art of painting in the sense in which I have explained iti.
THere now remain very few lights about the first means
that the Greeks had employed to render their thoughts sensible to the eyes, and to transmit them to posterity. We only fee, that in the first times they made use of practices almost like to those which all the people known in antiquity had used originally. We find among the Greeks these forts of poems, which they set to music, to preserve the memory of important facts and discoveries k. I suspect also, as I have said elsewhere, that they anciently made use of representative writing, which consists in designing the objects of which they would speak. With respect to hieroglyphics, I am ignorant whether the Greeks have known that fort of writing, I find no trace, no vestige in their history. Yet I would not infer that thefe people have never practised hieroglyphic writing. We are not sufficiently instructed in
h See p. 170, 171.
i Ibid. p. 163. k Tacit. annal. 1.4. n. 43.; Acad. des infcript. t. 6. p. 165. See also supra, book 1. chap. 3. art. 8. p. 77. & 78. See part s. book 2. chap. 6,
the ancient customs of Greece, to dare to pronounce any thing on that subject.
Alphabetic writing had only been introduced very lately into that part of Europe. Cadmus, according to the report of the best historians of antiquity, was the first who made known to the Greeks that sublime knowledge m. Some authors, indeed, would do that honour to Cecrops. But this sentiment is neither proved, nor followed. There are also found modern critics who have advanced, that, before Cadmus, the Pelasgians had an alphabetic writing • Whatever researches I have been able to make on this subject, I confess that I have not been able to find the least signs of it in antiquity. Every thing says to us, that we ought to refer to the arrival of Cadmus the knowledge of alphabetic characters in Greece. The comparison of the Phænician alphabet, and the Greek alphabet, would alone be sufficient to convince us. It is visible that the Greek characters are only the Phænician letters turned from right to left. Let us add to this the names, the form, the order, and value of the letters which are the same in one and the other writing p. The reasons which they would oppose to this sentiment appear to me so weak and so void of authority, that I do not think I ought to stop to oppose them,
The ancient Phænician alphabet brought into Greece by Cadmus, was defective enough ; it ended at Tau 4. It was only afterwards and at different times that they added to it Upsilon, Phi, Pli, &c. If we have regard to some Greek and Roman authors, this first alphabet would have been still more imperfect than we have said. They will have it in effect, that the alphabet of. Cadmus had only been composed of fix letters. They name Palamedes, Simonides, Epicharmes, for the authors of the new letters with which the Greek al.
* Herod. I. 5, 0. 58.; Ephorus apud Clem. Alex. ftrom. I. 1. p362.; Diod, 1. 3. p. 236.; Plin.1, 7. sect. 57.p. 412.; Tacit. annal. l. 11, n. 14.; Euseb. praep. evan, 1. 10. C. 5. p. 473.
Tacit. annal. l. 1. n. 14. • Acad. des infcript. t. 6. p. 616. P See Bochart chan. 1. 1. c. 20. p. 499.66. . See acad. des inscript, t, 23. mem. p. 420.,
? Ibid, loco cit. i Plut, t. 2. P. 733. F, i Plin. 1. 7. sect. 57. p. 412. & 413.