The origin of Painting in Greece was unknown to Pliny, to whom we are
chiefly indebted for the few fragments of the biography of Greek
artists; he could only obtain his information from Greek writers, of
whom he complains that they have not been very attentive to their
accustomed accuracy. It is certain, however, that the arts were
practiced in Egypt and in the East, many ages before they were known in
Greece, and it is the common opinion that they were introduced into that
country from Egypt and Asia, through the channel of the Phoenecian
traders. It has been a matter of admiration that the Greeks, in the
course of three or four centuries, should have attained such perfection
in every species of art that ennobles the human mind, as oratory,
poetry, music, painting, sculpture, and architecture. Two things explain
the cause--freedom of action, and certainty of reward. This is
exemplified in the whole history of the arts and sciences. The ancient
eastern nations, among whom the freedom of thought and action was
forbidden, and every man obliged to follow the trade of his caste, never
made any progress; nor will the moderns progress in those countries
till caste is done away, and every man allowed to follow the
inclinations of his genius.
The Greeks were favored with a climate the most congenial for the
perfect development of the mental and physical powers, and beauty of
form. Every man was at liberty freely to follow his favorite pursuits.
They rewarded all who excelled in anything that was useful or beautiful,
and that with a lavish hand. The prices they paid their great artists
were truly astonishing; in comparison to which, the prices paid to the
greatest artists of modern times are small. Nor was this so great an
incentive as the admiration and the caresses they received. The man of
genius was sure of immortality and wealth. Their academic groves and
their games were the admiration and resort of all the surrounding
countries. They decreed statues to their great men who deserved well of
their country. To other powerful incentives, the Greek artists had the
advantage of the best models before them, in their gymnastic exercises
and public games, where the youth contended for the prize quite naked.
The Greeks esteemed natural qualities so highly that they decreed the
first rewards to those who distinguished themselves in feats of agility
and strength. Statues were often raised to wrestlers. Not only the first
youth of Greece, but the sons of kings and princes sought renown in the
public games and gymnastic exercises. Chrysippus and Cleanthus
distinguished themselves in these games before they were known as
philosophers. Plato appeared as a wrestler both at the Isthmian and
Pythian games; and Pythagoras carried off the prize at Elis. The passion
which inspired them was glory--the ambition of having statues erected to
their memory, in the most sacred place in Greece, to be admired by the
whole people.
Although it is universally admitted that the Greeks carried sculpture
and architecture to such a state of perfection that they have never been
equalled by the moderns, except in imitating them, yet there is a great
contrariety of opinion among the most eminent modern writers as to their
success in painting; some, full of admiration for the works of antiquity
which have descended to us, have not hesitated to declare that the
Greeks must have been equally successful in painting, while others,
professing that we possess colors, vehicles, and science (as the
knowledge of foreshortening, perspective, and of the chiaro-scuro)
unknown to them, have as roundly asserted that they were far inferior to
the moderns in this branch, and that their pictures, could we now see
them in all their beauty, would excite our contempt. Much of this
boasted modern knowledge is, however, entirely gratuitous; the Greeks
certainly well understood foreshortening and perspective, as we have
abundance of evidence in their works, to say nothing of these being
expressly mentioned by Pliny, and that it is impossible to execute any
work of excellence without them. This erroneous opinion has sprung from
the ignorance and imperfections of _the old fathers_ of Italian art in
these particulars, and the discoveries and perfections of those more
modern. If the moderns possess any advantages over the ancients, it is
that chemistry has invented some beautiful colors unknown to them, the
invention of oil painting, and that illusion which results from a
perfect acquaintance with the principles of the chiaro-scuro; but even
here the mineral colors--the most valuable and permanent--were well
known to them; and if they had not oil colors, they had a method of
_encaustic painting_ not positively known to us, which might have
answered as good a purpose--nor are we sure they did not practice the
chiaro-scuro. Besides, the most renowned modern masters were more
celebrated in fresco than in oil painting, and the ancients well
understood painting in fresco.
In this, as in most other disputes, it may reasonably be presumed, that
a just estimation of both will be found between the extremes. In
comparing the paintings of the moderns with those of the ancients, it
may be fairly inferred that the latter surpassed the former in
expression, in purity of design, in attitude of the figures, and in
ideal beauty. The moderns have doubtless surpassed the ancients in the
arrangement of their groups, in perspective, foreshortening and
chiaro-scuro--and in coloring. For a further disquisition on this
subject, see Vol. I. p. 22, of this work, article Apelles.