188

PAINTING.

ian blue, verditer, nor litmus, which we have. We do not usethe blue precipitate of the dyers’ vats, nor mountain-blue, which,they certainly employed. Of green colours they had verdcgiise,terra vert, and malachite or mountain-green. The latter is notin use among us. Sap green, green verditer, and Scheele ’s green,appear to have been unknown to them : like us, they procured asmany tints as they pleased from blues and yellow vegetables. Wehave no original purple in use : that from gold by means of tin,though very good when well prepared, is too dear. Their pm-plewas a tinged earth. Their orange or sandarac (red orpimcnl) wealso possess. Hence there does not appear to have been any greatwant of pigments, or any very material difference between the co-lours they used and such as we generally employ. Perhaps thefull effect of colouring may be obtained without the use of theexceeding brilliant pigments, depending chiefly on the proportionand opposition of tints. The ancients were undoubtedly acquaint-ed with oil-varnishes, that is, with the use and effect of resinousgums dissolved in boiling inspissated oils. One of t he best pre-tervedjq)ummies in lhe British Museum has an astonishing b right-'' ness_of colours on the bTff5WgTrfWFecbliTm~~ TrioiisaiHl.s cf~~years~have not impaired them ; they arc as fresh as if they had beenlaid 6h yesterday. Plmy has described the effects of the varnishof Apelles , under the name of atriurpt. He hav mentioned theshining glossy skin of the varnish which, excites the brightness ofthe colours, and preserves them against dust; he observed, thatthis skin was laid on so thin, that it r.oukl not be discerned at anydistance. The chemists and connoisseur; are of opinion, that noliquid mixture of any kind is fit to produce these effects besidesthe oil-varnishes: and therefore, that Apelles and the Greeks werecertainly acquainted with those varnishes. The black outlines ofthe figures on the most ancient Greek paintings yet extant, thatis, on Etruscan vases, are so sharp, so thick, and drawn in soeasy and masterly a manner, that one cannot help looking uponthem as having been drawn in oil-colours. Yet the Greek andRoman paintings that have been preserved or discovered at Rome and Herculaneum do not countenance the supposition of oil-co-lours; at least Turnbull and the academists at Naples , who havedescribed the royal collection at Portici , Cochin, and many otherauthors who have seen and described them, do not hint any thingof that nature. On the other hand, Vitruvius , who has left us somany valuable notices of the ancient arts, acquaints us, that therewas a kind of painting which absolutely required a mixture of oil:and Pliny , to the same purpose, expressly says, “ Sun and moonshine are inimical and obnoxious to red lead. The remedy is toapply the red wax when hot and melted with some oil on thewell-dried walls, which is to be done with brushes.” But, on thewhole, we have no direct evidence, that painting in oil was under-stood, or practised, by the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans,hojvever nearly they may have approached towards the discovery.The art of painting was revived in Europe about the end of the13th or beginning of the 14th century. In Italy , where the firstattempts were made, they were employed in representing themysteries of the passion, and subjects of a similar nature, on thewalls of chapels and churches. Their labours were directed to avast number of figures, rather than to the beauty and perfection ofeach ; and the art in more modern times has always preservedsomewhat of this absurd fault which it contracted at that early pe-riod. The first thing, which they discovered or rather revivedwas perspective, which enabled them to give more truth to theirworks. Dominique Ghirlandaios, a Florentine, was the first whoenriched the style of his composition by grouping his figures, andwho gave depth to his pictures, by distinguishing, by exact grada-tions, the spaces which his figures occupied ; hut his successorshave far surpassed him in boldness of composition. Leonard DaVinci, Michael Angelo, Gicrgion, Titian , Barlholemew De St.Marc, and Raphael, flourished about the end ol the 14th century.Da Vinci was the inventor of many details in the art: MichaelAngelo , by studying the ancients, and by his knowledge of ana-tomy, arrived at great elegance in drawing the outlines of hisfigures: Giorgion gave greater brilliancy to his colours than hispredecessors: Titian , by a careful imitation of nature, made greatproficiency in the truth and perfection of his tones : St. Marc dis-covered the claro-obscu ro, the best manner of giving drapery tohis figures, and oi making the naked to be felt even where theywere covered : Raphael formed a style more perfect and more

universal than any painter, who went before or who has succeededhim. After Raphael had appeared, grace was the only thingwanting to the art, and Corregio became the Apelles of Europe ,Painting was by him carried to the highest degree among the mo-derns ; the taste of the best critics and the eye of the vulgar wereequally gratified. Alter these great masters a considerable inter-val elapsed till the time of the Caiacci, who by studying the worksof their predecessors, became the iirst and the most celebrated oftheir imitators. The pupils of the Caracci formed a school aftertheir manner; but Guido, a painter of an easy and happy talent,j formed a s.ty le altogether graceful, rich, and eusy. GuershenI formed after Caravaggio , or invented a particular style of theclaro-obscuro, composed of strong shades and vivid oppositions.Peter De Ccrtone succeeded those great imitators of their prede-cessors and of nature; and having great natural abilities, appliedhimself chiefly to composition and taste. He distinguished inven-tion from composition ; appeared not to have attended to the for-mer, but chiefly to those parts which are most prominent in thepicture, and to the contrasting of groups. About the middle oftire 17th century flourished at Rome Charles Maratti, who, aim-ing at the greatest perfection, carefully studied the works of thefirst painters, and particularly those of the school of the Caracci .France also produced great masters, particularly in the part ofcomposition; in which Poussin, after Raphael, is the best imita-tor of the style of- the ancient Greeks. Charles Le Brun andmany others distinguished themselves for great fertility of genius;and as long as the French school departed not from the principlesof the Italian school, it produced masters of great merit in the dif-ferent branches of (he art. Several great masters in painting havebeen distinguished by some peculiarities in their productions, ge-nerally arising either from the principles or from the manner ofexecution adopted by the artist. When the particular principle,manner, or style, of a painter is studied and followed by a class ofartists, such a class is commonly denominated a school, whichmost frequently receives its genera) appellation from the place orcountry where the artists chiefly practise. The school of Flo-rence is remarkable for greatness ; for attitudes seemingly in mo-tion ; for an expression of strength, by which grace perhaps is ex-cluded ; and for a character of design approaching to the gigantic.Andrew Castagna was the first Florentine who painted in oi l. ButLeonard Da \ inci and Michael Angelo , contemporary painters,were the glory of the school of Florence. Raphael San 2 io, bornat Urbino in 1483, and scholar to Peter Perugeno, was the un-doubted founder of this school. Ilis first manner was that of Pe-rugeno his master; but he travelled twice to Florence to studythe great artists who flourished in that city. It was fortunate forRaphael, says Mengs, that he was horn in what he terms the in-fancy of the art, and that lie formed himself by copying nature be-fore he had access to see the works of any great master. He be-gan by studying, with great exactness, the simple truth in hisngures. He was then ignorant that any choice was necessary;but he saw the works of Da Vinci, Massacio, and Michael An-gelo , which gave his genius a new direction. But the works ofthose masters were not sufficiently perfect to point out the bestchoice to make; and he continued in uncertainty till he saw inRome the works of the ancients. Then he found the true models,and in imitating them, he had only to follow the natural impulseof his genius. A masterly contrast between Angelo and Raphaelis given by Sir Joshua Reynolds : “ If we put (hose great artists(says lie) in comparison with each other, Raphael had more tasteand fancy, Michael Angelo tnore genius and imagination. Theone excelled in beauty, the other in energy. Michael Angelo has more of the poetical in operation ; his ideas me vast and 'ub-ime. Raphael’s imagination is not so elevated ; though his ideasare chaste, noble, and of great conformity to their subjects,” &c.The Venetian school is the child of nature. The Venetian pain-ters, not having under their eyes, like the Roman, the remains ofantiquity, were destitute of tiie means of forming a just idea ofthe beauty of forms and of expression. They copied withoutchoice the forms of nature ; blit they were chiefly delighted withthe beauties which presented themselves in the mixture and thevariety of natural colours. Colouring was their chief object, andthey, succeed in it. They endeavoured by the agreement andopposition of the coloured objects, and by the contrast of lightand shade, to produce a vigorous effect, to demand and fix (lie

attention.