From the Abbé MAZEAS, F. R. S.
_Concerning an ancient Method of Painting. Revived by Count_ CAYLUS.
Count CAYLUS, a member of the Academy of Inscriptions,
had undertaken to explain an obscure passage in PLINY the
naturalist. This author (whom I have not now before me) says in
some place of his works, that “the ancients painted with burnt
wax”[2] and we have it from tradition, that pictures of this
kind were very durable.
This was the passage, the count undertook to clear up, in
trying all the different ways that are possible to paint in
wax; and after many experiments, he hit upon a very simple
method, of which he made a secret, in order to excite the
curiosity of the public.
The several artists who were desirous of knowing by what means
the count came to make this discovery, made several attempts
themselves; but in a great number of trials, only two are worth
mentioning.
The first was to melt wax and oil of turpentine together, and
use it for mixing the colours. But this method does not at
all explain PLINY’S meaning; because wax is not burnt in this
way of managing it: and besides, this method has two defects;
the oil of turpentine dries too fast, and does not allow the
painter sufficient time to blend and unite his colours.
The second method is very ingenious, and seems to come up
to PLINY’S notion very well; it is as follows; the wax is
melted with strong lixivium of salt of tartar, and with this
the colours are ground. When the picture is finished, it
is gradually put to the fire, which increases the heat by
degrees; the wax melts, swells, and is bloated up upon the
picture; then the picture is removed gradually from the fire,
and the colours do not at all appear to have been disordered;
the colours then become unalterable by the action of the fire,
and even spirit of wine has been burnt upon them without doing
them the least harm.
However, the following is the Count de CAYLUS’S method, which
is much more simple; according to which the head of Minerva was
painted, which was so much admired by all the connoisseurs.
_First._ The cloth or wood designed for the picture is waxed
over, by only rubbing it simply with a piece of bees-wax.
_Secondly._ The colours are mixed up with common water; but as
these colours will not adhere to the wax, the whole picture is
to be first rubbed over with Spanish chalk, or whitening, and
then the colours are used.
_Thirdly._ When the picture is dry, it is put near the fire,
whereby the wax melts, and absorbs all the colours.
It must be allowed, that nothing can be more simple than this
method; and it is thought, that this kind of painting is
capable of withstanding the injuries of the weather, and last
longer than painting in oil; which I will not answer for.
The effect produced by these colours upon wax is very singular;
nor can one have any notion of it without seeing it. The
colours have not that natural varnish or shining, that they
acquire with oil; but you are capable of seeing the picture in
any light, or in whatsoever situation you place it; in short
there can be no false glare or light upon the picture for the
spectators: the colours are secured, are firm, and will bear
washing; and have a property, which I look upon as the most
important of any, which is, that they have smoaked this picture
in places subject to foul vapours, and to smoke in chimnies;
and then by being exposed to the dew, it became as clean as if
it had been but just painted.
These are all the contents of the letter, laid before the Royal
Society by a member of that learned body, who accompanied it with a
series of very acute and learned observations, which, with an extensive
knowledge, shew an inclination to prove that the count’s method could
not be the encaustic of the ancients, and that _encausto pingendi_
could be nothing else but enameling.----
* * * * *
It is neither my business nor intention to enter into discussions; it
would be too difficult a task to prove that the count’s invention comes
up to PLINY’S meaning; no certain evidence can be brought neither for
nor against it. Any discovery that tends towards improvement of arts
and sciences is valuable; that the count’s invention is of this kind,
will appear to every unprejudiced mind.
Therefore it matters not if the ancients did so or not.
But, to give my opinion only----the numberless experiments I made to
bring the new encaustic into a regular system--the repeated trials to
explain PLINY’S meaning any other way that would answer the general
ends of painting, &c. induce me to believe that _encausto pingendi_
of the ancients could not be enameling, but must have been some
manner of painting very near of kin to that which is the subject of
this treatise. Besides the clear and expressive words of our ancient
author--_Ceris pingere ac picturam inurere_--and where he speaks of
their ship painting--_resolutis igni ceris penicilio utendi_--carry a
silent proof with them, that the Latin verb _urere_ ought not to be
understood in so fierce a degree as enameling requires.[3]
In both the above cited passages _cera_ is in the plural number; and
for this very reason I believe it can mean nothing else but bees-wax
simple, or compounded with other ingredients capable to sympathise
therewith.
It would be ridiculous to suppose the Latin tongue so defective in
PLINY’S time, as not to afford two distinct names for two things so
opposite as enameling and ship painting are.
I cannot conceive what good enamel would or could do to their ships,
without undergoing the operation of the fire after being painted. Nor
can I form any idea of a Roman enameled first-rate man of war.
The most probable reason, for PLINY’S not giving a better account of
particulars may be, that he knowing nothing at all of the matter, used
the term of art then in vogue; or was imposed upon by artists who did
not chuse to part with the secret of their art.
Instances of this kind we have every day.----Arts and trades abound
with jargon and mystical names, which, if taken or explained literally,
would often prove but little analogous to their subject. Writers that
pay no regard to that, and without farther scrutiny speak and relate
what they are told, must of course be unintelligible. Hence it comes
that most of our dictionaries on arts and sciences, and the greatest
number of books on painting, are so perplexing; and in many a point
rival PLINY in obscurity.
To write upon a subject and unfold its mystery, one ought to be
practically acquainted with it; a superficial drawing is not enough; to
teach others how to go to work, the section is wanted.
If all books upon arts and sciences, manufactures and mechanics, had
been or could be written by the respective professors thereof, things
would appear in another light; we should, perhaps, not have the finest
language in those performances; but we do not want that, plain truth
and common sense is all that is required; if a guide leads us the right
way, we need not mind his dress.
I shall make no apology for this performance of mine: if the contents
do not speak for themselves, my abilities as a writer would but weakly
support them, only as new inventions are frequently condemned for no
other reason but because they are new; it becomes me to acquaint the
public, that I should never have gone so far as to publish this system,
if I had not been convinced of its merit by experience and practice; I
made many and various experiments (as will be mentioned in the sequel)
to ascertain its stability; and having painted several pictures of
different sizes, I can answer for its practicability. In short, it
is a manner of painting susceptible of all the boldness, freedom and
delicacy of any other whatsoever; you may leave off and cherish your
work at pleasure, you cannot fatigue your colours, you are not subject
to that inconvenience attending oil painting, viz. of setting one’s
picture by to dry, &c.
You will have all the effects and sweetness of painting in oil, and
the colours will not be liable to fade and change; no damp can affect
it, no corrosive will hurt it; nor can the colours crack and fall in
shivers from off the canvas.
Let no-body think me too positive, or intoxicated with my own notions,
before they have gone through the whole treatise, and made a few
experiments. I advance facts, and not conjectures only.
It is not my intention to quarrel or depreciate oil painting, nor
will I attempt to deny its true merit; therefore hope it will not
be considered as a crime to propose a method that will equal its
perfections, and surpass it for duration and stability of colours. I
tell artists what I know, they may do what they judge proper. Though
I bestow encomiums upon my subject it is not with a design to impose;
I am not self-conceited, or foolish enough to think or believe that
Rynolds or Ransey, Scott or Lambert, &c. &c. will take up at once and
prefer my new system to that they practised for many years with success
and applause--they, and every body else, may try; a trifling expence,
and a few idle hours will afford experiments by which they will know
if what I advance will really be an advantage to their works and
themselves. And how far it will answer, either whole or in part, the
general ends of painting, one single sketch will be enough to judge by;
in arts, one experience is worth a thousand conjectures.
In the prosecution of my system, oil-colours came always in for a part
of the experiment, in opposition to those fixed with wax, in order to
judge better and with more precision of their variation. By this it
happened that I often painted oil-colours over a waxed ground; which
colours always appeared brighter and cleaner than the very same painted
over an oil-cloth; at least I fancied that dead colouring in water
colours and finishing in oil, was an experiment worth trying. For this
purpose (as portrait painting is not my province) I pitched upon a head
of Sir Godfrey Kneller, a gentleman and friend had sent me to copy
small in oil; accordingly I dead coloured it in water colours and fixed
them with wax, and afterwards finished it in oil-colours, not only to
my satisfaction and surprize, but every body’s else that saw it; the
brightness and transparency of its colours is not to be conceived. I
copied the same head again in oil-colours only, and with all imaginable
care and attention, but the colouring of the latter looked dull in
opposition to the other[4]; to give reasons for this incident is more
than I can do; I shall give a few conjectures, and conjectures only,
upon it, under the article of experiments.
If I should not gain the approbation and good will of the oil painting
faculty, for a few hints: I am sure those artists who profess painting
in crayons will be beholden to me for what I shall communicate to
them--a method to fix crayons or pastelle.
Every body knows the beauties and pleasing effects of those paintings
and their perishable qualities so well, that to enlarge upon is
needless to bestow great encomiums upon my secret, which is so closely
connected with encaustic for the pencil, and whose merit has already
been mentioned, would be superfluous; the process and experiments I
am now going to unfold will be of more weight than all my reasonings
previous thereto.
To make the whole familiar and easy to all capacities, I thought it
convenient to lay down the whole penciling system under five different
articles or periods, according as they succeed each other in the
execution; and to keep the thread of the proceeding uninterrupted, I
shall make a few observations upon every article in particular, and
there give and explain the different methods that may be practised for
the same end, together with my reason, and why I deviated in some parts
from Count CAYLUS’S system.
The operations for painting with crayons will be treated and explained
separately, and upon the same plan. Lastly, the experiments will come
in to illustrate both, and verify what I advance.