543
this early origin, by considering the expedients by which, in thefirst stages of society, men have every where supplied the place ofalphabetical characters, These, it is universally known, have beenpicture-writing , such as that of the Mexicans, which, in the pro-gress of refinement and knowledge, was gradually improved intothe hieroglyphics of the Egyptians and other ancient nations. SeeHieroglyphics. It is generally thought that sculpture had itsorigin from idolatry, as it was found necessary to place before thepeople the images pf their gods to enliven the fervour of their de-votion ; but this is probably a mistake. The worship of the hea-venly bodies, as the only gods of the heathen nations, prevailedso long before the deification of dead men was thought of (see PC-1, ytheism,) that we cannot suppose mankind to have been, duringall that time, ignorant of the art of hieroglyphical writing. Butthe deification of departed heroes undoubtedly gave rise to the al-most universal practice of representing the gods by images of ahuman form ; and therefore we must conclude, that the elementsof sculpture were known before that art was employed to enliventhe devotion of'idolatrous worshippers. The pyramids and obe-lisks of Egypt , which were probably temples, or rather altars,dedicated to the sun, were covered from top to bottom withhieroglyphical emblems of men, beasts, birds, fishes, and reptiles,at a period prior to that in which there is any unexceptionable evi-dence that mere statue-worship prevailed even in that nursery ofidolatry. The first intimation that we have of the art of sculptureis in the book of Genesis, where we are informed, that when Jacob,by the divine command, was returning to Canaan , his wife Rachelcarried along with her the teraphim or idols of her father. Thesewe are assured were Small, since Rachel found it so easy to con-ceal them from her father, notwithstanding his anxious search.We are ignorant, however, how these images were made, or ofwhat materials they were composed. The first person mentionedas an artist of eminence is Bezaleel , who formed the cherubimswhich covered the mercy-seat. The Egyptians early cultivatedthe art of sculpture; but there were two circumstances that ob-structed its progress. 1. The persons of the Egyptians were notpossessed of the graces of form, elegance, or symmetry ; and ofconsequence they had no perfect standard to model their taste.They resembled the Chinese in the cast of their face, in their greatbellies, and in the clumsy rounding of their contours. 2. Theywere restrained by their laws to the principles and practicesof their ancestors, and were not permitted to introduce any inno-vations. Their statues were always formed in the same stiff attitude,with the arms hanging perpendicularly down the sides. Whatperfection were they capable of who knew no other attitude thanthat of chairmen ? So far were they from attempting any improve-ments that in the time of Adrian the art continued in the samerude state as at first; and when their slavish adulation for that em-peror induced them to place the statue of his favourite Antinous among the objects of their worship, the same inanimate stiffnessjn the attitude of the body and position of the arms was observed.This Egyptian statue, therefore, was different from the celebratedstatue of Antinous , of which so many moulds have been taken, •that imitations of it are now to be met with almost in every cabi-net in Europe. The Phoenicians possessed both a character andsituation highly favourable to the cultivation of statuary. Theyhad beautiful models in their own persons, and their industriouscharacter qualified them to attain perfection in every art for whichthey had a taste. Their situation raised a spirit of commerce, andcommerce induced them to cultivate the arts. Their templesshone with statues and columns of gold, and a profusion of eme-nds was everywhere scattered. Ail the great works of the Plice-Jl'cians have been unfortunately destroyed ; but many of the Car-thaginian medals are still preserved, ten of which are deposited in‘he cabinet of the King of Etruria. But though the Carthaginiansa colony of Phoenicians , we cannot from their works judgei il their ancestors. The Etrurians or ancient Tuscans,
n the opinion of Winkelman, carried this art to some degree ofPerfection at an earlier period than the Greeks. It is said to haveeen introduced before the siege of Troy by Daedalus , who, toscape the resentment of Minos king of Crete , took refuge in Si-rnL w j. en . ce ' ie passed into Italy , where he left many monu-som S °' *i' S art ‘ •^ >ausan ' as and Diodorus Siculus inform us, thatand tw°i ascrl ked to him were to be seen when they wrote,that these possessed that character of majesty which distin-
guished the labours of Etruria . Winkelman supposes that the se-cond epoch of this art commenced in Etruria , about the time atwhich it had readied its greatest perfection in Greece , in the ageof Phidias ; but this conjecture is not supported by any proofs.To describe the second style of sculpture among the Etrurians,is almost the same as to describe the style of Michael Angelo andhis numerous imitators. The joints are strongly marked, themuscles raised, the bones distinguishable; hut the whole mienharsh. In designing the bone of the leg, and the separation of themuscles of the calf, there is an elevation and strength above life.The statues of the gods are designed with more delicacy, if theGreeks derived from foreign nations the rudiments of the arts, itmust redound much to their honour, that in a few centuries theycarried them to such wonderful perfection as entirely to eclipse thefame of their masters. The progress of sculpture was rapid, sothat their works soon became the models for imitation. The me-thod of execution in the Greek statues and other works of sculp-ture, seems to have been extremely different from that which isgenerally in use among modern artists. In the ancient stat ues, wefrequently find striking proofs of the freedom and boldness that ac-companied each stroke of the chisel, and which resulted from theartist’s being perfectly sure of the accuracy of the method whichbe pursued. Even in the most minute parts of the figure, no in-dication of timorousness or diffidence appears; nothing that caninduce us to believe, that the artist feared he might have occasionto correct his strokes. It is difficult to find, even in the second-rate productions of the Grecian artists, any mark of a false strokeor a random-touch. This firmness and precision of the Grecianchisel, were certainly derived from a more determined and perfectset of rules,, than those of which we are masters.
-Of the Practice of Sculpture.
In the Grecian sculpture, it is the opinion of the ablest criticsthat modern artists have been more or less eminent as they havestudied with the greater or less attention the models left us by theGrecian sculptors; As soon as the artist lias acquired an intimatedegree of familiarity with the beauties of the Grecian statues, andformed his taste alter the admirable models they exhibit, he may-then proceed with advantage and assurance to the imitation of na-ture. The ideas he has already formed of the perfection of nature,by observing her dispersed beauties, combined and collected inthe compositions of the ancient artists, will enable him to acquirewith facility,, and to employ with advantage, the detached and par-tial ideas of beauty which will be exhibited to his view in a surveyof nature in her actual state. When he discovers these partialbeauties, he will be capable of combining them with those per-fect forms of beauty with which he is already acquainted. In aword, by having always present to his mind the noble models al-ready mentioned, he will be in some measure his own oracle, andwill draw rules from his own mind. There are, however, twoways of imitating nature. In the one a single object occupies theartist, who endeavours to represent it with precision and truth ;in the other, certain lines and features are taken from a variety ofobjects, and combined and blended into one regular whole. “Allkinds of copies belong to the first kind of imitation ; and produc-tions of this kind must be executed necessarily in the Dutch man-ner, that is to say, with high finishing, and little or no invention.But the second kind of imitation leads directly to the investigationand discovery of true beauty, of that beauty whose idea is connatewith the human mind, and is only to be found there in its highestperfection. This is the kind of imitation in which the Greeks ex-celled, and in which men of genius excite the young artists toexcel after their example, viz. by studying nature as they did.After having studied in the productions ot the Grecian masterstheir choice and expression of select nature, their sublime andgraceful contours, their noble draperies, together with that sedategrandeur and admirable simplicity that constitute their chief merit,the curious artists will do well to study the manual and mechanicalpart of their operations, as this is absolutely necessary to the suc-cessful imitation of their excellent manner. The ancients almostalways formed their first models in wax ; to this, modern artistshave substituted clay, or some such composition; they preferclay before wax in the carnations, on account of the yielding na-ture of the latter, and it sticking in some measure to every thing ittouches. We must not, however, imagine from hence that “the
method