Next may be enumerated the great order of lilies (_Liliaceæ_), to which

the homely and useful onion, leek, garlic, chive, and asparagus belong,

no less than a multitude of lovely flowers.

The New Zealand flax (_Phormium tenax_), and all the magnificent yuccas

and aloes, together with our English butcher's broom (_Ruscus

aculeatus_), which has not a little botanical interest (as being the

only British shrub which belongs to the group called "Monocotyledons")

also belong to this order. Closely allied to the lilies are the

amaryllids (_Amaryllidaceæ_), amongst which are the agaves, with their

gigantic flower stems, sometimes forty feet high, supporting a

multitudinous crop of flowers, the product and termination of a life.

To these follow the pine-apples (_Bromeliaceæ_) all originally from

America, the useful bananas and plantains (_Musaceæ_), and the

ginger-plants (_Zingiberaceæ_), tropical herbs, generally of great

beauty.

The underground parts of certain tropical plants (_Dioscoreaceæ_) are

known as "yams." A representative of this order exists in England in the

climbing black bryony (_Tamus_) of our hedges, and to the same group

belongs the very singularly stemmed elephant's foot, or tortoise-tree

(_Testudinaria elephantipes_). The last-named plant is a native of the

Cape of Good Hope, where it has been known as Hottentot's bread, because

the soft interior of its swollen base was at one time eaten by the

natives of that region, who have, however, now abandoned it to the

baboons.

Lastly, in this connexion may be mentioned the very interesting and

beautiful group of orchids (_Orchidaceæ_), many of which live high up

in the air, supported on the branches of trees, from which their roots

hang freely down. Such orchids are sometimes spoken of as "air-plants."

All the Angiosperms as yet mentioned, from the grasses to the orchids

inclusively, belong to the lower of the two great groups or classes into

which, as was lately said, the whole mass of Angiosperms is divided.

This great group is named _Monocotyledones_ (on account of the structure

of the seed), and it is sometimes spoken of as _Endogens_, in reference

to a generally prevalent habit of growth. The members of this whole

class will then hereinafter be spoken of as "Monocotyledons."

All the plants which yet remain to be enumerated belong to the other and

still greater group of Angiosperms called (also in reference to their

seeds) _Dicotyledons_, a group sometimes spoken of as "_Exogens_," in

reference to the habit of growth prevalent amongst its species.

All our familiar trees which are not conifers, and most of our flowering

shrubs and herbs, are "Dicotyledons."

Amongst the many orders which compose the Dicotyledonous group the few

following may be selected for enumeration, either on account of the

general interest they possess, or because they will have to be more or

less referred to hereafter.

We may thus note the singular order of vegetable parasites, the

_Loranthaceæ_, an order containing some thirty genera with four hundred

species, and including the mistletoe, which is traditionally venerable

in our island. The great group of catkin-bearing trees (_Amentaceæ_),

contains a great assemblage of plants, familiar in England, such as the

hornbeam, hazel, oak, beech, Spanish chestnut, birch, willow, poplar,

&c.[24]

The largest and one of the most remarkable flowers in the world,

_Rafflesia_--a parasite found in Java and Sumatra by Sir Stamford

Raffles--is the type of the small order _Rafflesiaceæ_. The eccentric

pitcher-bearing plants form the order _Nepenthaceæ_. The English herb

called "Spurge" (with its milky juice), belongs to the order

(_Euphorbiaceæ_), which is a large[25] cosmopolitan group, some species

of the plants belonging to which attain, in hot countries, the size of

trees. Certain African species strangely resemble different kinds of

_Cactus_. The elm order (_Ulmaceæ_) may come next. The hop, the hemp,

the mulberry, the fig, and the dorstenia are all nearly allied, the

first two belonging to the order _Cannabinaceæ_, the last three to the

_Moraceæ_. The bread-fruit of the South-Sea Islands belongs to the same

order (_Artocarpaceæ_) as does the deadly upas-tree of Java. Garments

made of the inner bark of this plant are like the shirt of Nessus, and

will produce intolerable irritation; and even climbing the tree to

obtain its flowers is said to have produced severe effects on the

climber. In proximity to the last-mentioned plant comes appropriately

(as also in its proper botanical order) the group of stinging-nettles

(_Urticaceæ_). The curious Australian plants which delighted the eyes of

Captain Cook's botanical companions belong to the order _Proteaceæ_.

Besides these may be mentioned the dead-nettle order (_Labiatæ_); the

broom-rapes (_Orobanchaceæ_); the order of snap-dragons and foxgloves

(_Scrophularineæ_); the potato group (_Solanaceæ_), which includes the

deadly nightshade and the dulcamara of our hedges; the parasitic order

(_Cuscutaceæ_); the beautiful group of convolvuluses (_Convolvulaceæ_);

the gentians (_Gentianaceæ_); the primrose group (_Primulaceæ_); the

heaths (_Ericaceæ_); the graceful hair-bell and its allies

(_Campanulaceæ_); the very large group to which belong the daisy,

dandelion, and thistle (_Compositæ_); the honeysuckle order

(_Caprifoliaceæ_); the ivy (_Araliaceæ_); the large order containing the

fennel, hemlock, and a multitude of other forms which, though mostly

ranking as herbs, attain gigantic dimensions in some species found in

Africa and Kamskatka (_Umbelliferæ_); the very singularly-shaped group

of cactuses (_Cactaceæ_), with leafless fleshy stems, which sometimes

look like dry columns and sometimes are globular; the begonias

(_Begoniaceæ_); the cucumbers, melons, and vegetable marrows

(_Cucurbitaceæ_); the singularly-formed passion-flowers

(_Passifloraceæ_); the myrtles (_Myrtaceæ_); the carnivorous group

containing the sundew and Venus's flytrap (_Droseracæ_); the fleshy

houseleek and stonecrops (_Crassulaceæ_); the Saxifrages

(_Saxifragaceæ_); the rose group (_Rosaceæ_), which includes within it

most of our fruits, such as the apple, pear, strawberry, cherry, peach,

plum, almond, and others; the very large order which contains the peas,

beans, and their allies (_Leguminoseæ_); the horse-chestnut order

(_Hippocastaneæ_); the maples (_Acerineæ_); the hollies (_Ilicineæ_);

the oranges and citrons (_Aurantiaceæ_); the cranesbills and

pelargoniums (_Geraniaceæ_); the flaxes (_Linaceæ_); the limes

(_Tiliaceæ_), in which the useful jute is included; the mallows

(_Malvaceæ_); the St. John's worts (_Hypericaceæ_); the order of pinks

(_Caryophylleæ_); the pansies (_Violaceæ_); the rock-roses (_Cistaceæ_);

the mignonette group (_Resedaceæ_); the great wall-flower and cabbage

group (_Cruciferæ_); the poppies (_Papaveraceæ_); the water-lilies

(_Nymphaceæ_); the berberries (_Berberideæ_); the custard-apples

(_Anonaceæ_); the magnolias (_Magnoliaceæ_); and, finally, the great

group (_Ranunculaceæ_) containing the anemones, the clematis, hellebore,

monkshood, and the buttercup, which last is of great use to the student

of Botany because it is an excellent type of all flowers.

The above may serve as a brief enumeration of the more generally known

or more interesting orders of flowering plants, as also of the most

noteworthy forms of cryptogams. The much more numerous and complex

groups of animals have also been catalogued in the earlier and larger

part of this Essay, which may thus, it is hoped, answer the purpose of

an introduction to those multitudinous forms of organic life, the

leading points in the structure and functions of which are hereafter to

occupy us.

The main groups of Animals and Plants may be provisionally tabulated as

follows:--

ANIMALS.

{ _Mammalia_ (Man and Beasts)

(1) VERTEBRATA { _Aves_ (Birds)

(Back-boned { _Reptilia_ (Serpents, Crocodiles, Lizards, &c.)

Animals) { _Batrachia_ (Frogs, Efts, &c.)

{ _Pisces_ (Fishes)

{ _Cephalopoda_ (Cuttle Fishes)

(2) MOLLUSCA { _Pteropoda_

(Soft Animals) { _Gasteropoda_ (Snails, &c.)

{ _Lamellibranchiata_ (Oysters, &c.)

{ _Brachiopoda_ (Lamp-shells)

(3) TUNICATA (Ascidians, Tunicaries, or Sea-squirts)

(4) ARTHROPODA { _Crustacea_ (Crabs, &c.)

(Animals with { _Myriapoda_ (Hundred-legs, &c.)

jointed feet) { _Arachnida_ (Scorpions, Spiders, &c.)

{ _Insecta_

{ _Annelida_ (Earth-worms, Leeches, &c.)

{ _Enteropneusta_ (Balanoglossus)

{ _Bryozoa_ (Sea-mat, &c.)

{ _Nematoidea_ (Thread-worms)

(5) VERMES { _Trematoda_ (Flukes, &c.)

{ _Turbellaria_ (Planariæ, &c.)

{ _Cestoidea_ (Tape-worms)

{ _Rotifera_ (Wheel-animalcules)

{ _Gasterotricha_

{ _Gephyrea_ (Sipunculus, &c.)

(6) ECHINODERMA (Star-fishes, &c.)

{ _Ctenophora_ (Beröe, &c.)

(7) COELENTERA { _Actinozoa_ (Coral animals)

{ _Hydrozoa_ (Jelly-fishes, &c.)

(8) SPONGIDA (Sponges)

{ _Infusoria_ (Animalcules with mouths)

(9) HYPOZOA { _Gregarinida_

{ _Rhizopoda_ (Foraminifers, Radiolarians,

Flagellata, &c.)

PLANTS.

{ _Algæ_ (Sea-weeds, Confervæ, &c.)

{ _Fungi_

{ _Lichenes_

(1) CRYPTOGAMIA { _Hepaticæ_ (Liverworts and Scale-mosses)

(Flowerless { _Characeæ_ (Nitella, &c.)

Plants) { _Musci_ (Mosses)

{ _Marsiliaceæ_ (Pepperworts)

{ _Equisetaceæ_ (Horsetails)

{ _Filices_ (Ferns)

(2) PHANEROGAMIA { A. _Gymnosperms_ (Firs, Yews, Cycads, &c.)

(Flowering { { _Monocotyledones_ (Grasses, Palms, Lilies,

Plants) { B. _Angiosperms_ { Orchids, &c.)

{ { _Dicotyledones_ (the great mass of Flowering

{ { Plants and Trees).

ST. GEORGE MIVART.

FOOTNOTES:

[4] CONTEMPORARY REVIEW, May, 1879, p. 261.

[5] _L. c._ p. 262.

[6] "A classification of any large portion of the field of Nature, in

conformity to the foregoing principles, has hitherto been found

practicable only in one great instance, that of animals."--_Logic_,

third edition, 1851, vol. i., chap. viii. § 5, page 279.

[7] CONTEMPORARY REVIEW, July, 1879, pp. 716 and 717.

[8] _L. c._ p. 717.

[9] CONTEMPORARY REVIEW, July, 1879: "What are Living Beings?"

[10] Very small deer, commonly called in error musk-deer.

[11] The European beavers have abandoned the dam-building habit. They

retained it, however, as late as the thirteenth century.

[12] By the Author in a Paper read before the Zoological Society in Nov.

1864. See also his "Man and Apes," Hardwicke, 1873; and the article

"Ape" in the "Encyclopædia Britannica," vol. ii. p. 148.

[13] "Histoire Naturelle," tome xiv. p. 61, 1766.

[14] For an explanation of the zoological system of nomenclature which

has been adopted since the time of Linnæus, see CONTEMPORARY REVIEW for

May, page 262.

[15] See ante, p. 14.

[16] See CONTEMPORARY REVIEW for July, p. 710.

[17] See CONTEMPORARY REVIEW, July, p. 710.

[18] For a summary of our knowledge respecting this group, see the

"Linnean Society's Journal," Vol. xiv. (Zoology), p. 136.

[19] A "spore" is a minute reproductive particle.

[20] See CONTEMPORARY REVIEW for July, 1879, p. 714.

[21] Some botanists think that yeast is no true and definite kind of

plant, but that it is only a conglomeration of fungoid spores of divers

sorts.

[22] This motion is that referred to at the bottom of page 696, in the

CONTEMPORARY REVIEW for July, 1879, as _Cyclosis_.

[23] Some readers may be startled at the mode here adopted of primarily

dividing the Phanerogams, and may object to it as opposed to usage; but

reasons will be given later for the mode of division here adopted.

[24] The above-named plants may for our purpose be thus conveniently

grouped together, according to the older fashion of botanists. Strictly

speaking, however, they should be divided amongst several

orders--_e.g._, hazel and hornbeam (_Corylaceæ_), the oak, beech, and

chestnut (_Capuliferæ_), the birches (_Betulaceæ_), the willows

(_Salicaceæ_), &c.

[25] Containing upwards of 2500 species.

THE ARTISTIC DUALISM OF THE RENAISSANCE.

I.

Into the holy enclosure which had received the precious shiploads of

earth from Calvary, the Pisans of the thirteenth century carried the

fragments of ancient sculpture brought from Rome and from Greece; and in

the Gothic cloister enclosing the green sward and dark cypresses of the

grave-yard of Pisa, the art of the Middle Ages came for the first time

face to face with the art of antiquity. There, among pagan sarcophagi

turned into Christian tombs, with heraldic devices chiselled on to their

arabesques and vizored helmets surmounting their garlands, the great

unsigned artist of the fourteenth century, be he Sienese or Florentine,

be he Orcagna, Lorenzetti, or Volterra, painted the typical masterpiece

of mediæval art, the great fresco of the Triumph of Death. With

wonderful realization of character and situation he painted the

prosperous of the world, the dapper youths and damsels seated with dogs

and falcons beneath the orchard trees, amusing themselves with

Decameronian tales and sound of lute and psaltery, unconscious of the

gigantic scythe wielded by the gigantic dishevelled Death, and which, in

a second, will descend and mow them to the ground; but the crowd of

beggars, ragged, maimed, paralyzed, leprous, grovelling on their

withered limbs, see and implore Death, and cry stretching forth their

arms, their stumps, and their crutches. Further on, three kings in long

embroidered robes and gold-trimmed shovel caps, Lewis the Emperor,

Uguccione of Pisa, and Castruccio of Lucca, with their retinue of ladies

and squires, and hounds and hawks, are riding quietly through a wood.

Suddenly their horses stop, draw back; the Emperor's bay stretches out

his long neck sniffing the air; the kings strain forward to see, one

holding his nose for the stench of death which meets him; and before

them are three open coffins, in which lie, in three loathsome stages of

corruption, from blue and bloated putrescence to well-nigh fleshless

decay, three crowned corpses. This is the triumph of Death; the grim and

horrible jest of the Middle Ages: equality in decay; kings, emperors,

ladies, knights, beggars, and cripples, this is what we all come to be,

stinking corpses; Death, our lord, our only just and lasting sovereign,

reigns impartially over all.

But opposite, all along the sides of the painted cloister, the amazons

are wrestling with the youths on the stone of the sarcophagi; the

chariots are dashing forward, the Tritons are splashing in the marble

waves; the Bacchantæ are striking their timbrels in their dance with the

satyrs; the birds are pecking at the grapes, the goats are nibbling at

the vines, all is life, strong and splendid in its marble eternity. And

the mutilated Venus smiles towards the broken Hermes; the stalwart

Hercules, resting against his club, looks on quietly, a smile beneath

his beard; and the gods murmur to each other, as they stand in the

cloister filled with earth from Calvary, where hundreds of men lie

rotting beneath the cypresses, "Death will not triumph for ever; our day

will come."

We have all seen them opposite to each other, these two arts, the art

born of antiquity and the art born of the Middle Ages; but whether this

meeting was friendly or hostile or merely indifferent, is a question of

constant dispute. To some, mediæval art has appeared being led,

Dante-like, by a magician Virgil through the mysteries of Nature up to a

Christian Beatrice, who alone can guide it to the kingdom of heaven;

others have seen mediæval art, like some strong, chaste knight turning

away resolutely from the treacherous sorceress of antiquity, and

pursuing solitarily the road to the true and the good; for some the

antique has been an impure goddess Venus, seducing and corrupting the

Christian artist; the antique has been for others a glorious Helen, an

unattainable perfection, ever pursued by the mediæval craftsman, but

seized by him only as a phantom. Magician or witch, voluptuous,

destroying Venus or cold and ungrasped Helen, what was the antique to

the art born of the Middle Ages and developed during the Renaissance?

Was the relation between them that of tuition, cool and abstract, or of

fruitful lore, or of deluding and damning example?

The art which came to maturity in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth

centuries was generated in the early mediæval revival. The seeds may,

indeed, have come down from antiquity, but they remained for nearly a

thousand years hidden in the withered, rotting remains of former

vegetation, and it was not till that vegetation had completely

decomposed and become part of the soil, it was not till putrefaction had

turned into germination, that artistic organism timidly reappeared. The

new art-germ developed with the new civilization which surrounded it.

Manufacture and commerce reappeared: the artisans and merchants formed

into communities; the communities grew into towns, the towns into

cities; in the city arose the cathedral; the Lombard or Byzantine

mouldings and traceries of the cathedral gave birth to figure-sculpture;

its mosaics gave birth to painting; every forward movement of the

civilization unfolded as it were a new form or detail of the art, until,

when mediæval civilization was reaching its moment of consolidation,

when the cathedrals of Lucca and Pisa stood completed, when Niccoto and

Giovanni Pisani had sculptured their pulpits and sepulchres, painting,

in the hands of, Cimabue and Duccio, of Giotto and of Guido da Siena,

freed itself from the tradition of the mosaicists as sculpture had freed

itself from the practice of the stone-masons, and stood forth an

independent and organic art.

Thus painting was born of a new civilization, and grew by its own vital

force; a thing of the Middle Ages, original and spontaneous. But

contemporaneous with the mediæval revival was the resuscitation of

antiquity; in proportion as the new civilization developed, the old

civilization was exhumed; real Latin began to be studied only when real

Italian began to be written; Dante, Petrarca, and Boccaccio were at once

the founders of modern literature and the exponents of the literature of

antiquity; the strong young present was to profit by the experience of

the past.

As it was with literature, so likewise was it with art. The most purely

mediæval sculpture, the sculpture which has, as it were, just detached

itself from the capitals and porches of the cathedral, is the direct

pupil of the antique; and the three great Gothic sculptors, Niccoto,

Giovanni, and Andrea of Pisa, learn from fragments of Greek and Roman

sculpture how to model the figure of the Redeemer and how to chisel the

robe of the Virgin. This spontaneous mediæval sculpture, aided by the

antique, preceded by a full half-century the appearance of mediæval

painting; and it was from the study of the works of the Pisan sculptors,

that Cimabue and Giotto learned to depart from the mummified

monstrosities of the Miratic, Byzantine, and Roman style of Giunta and

Berlinghieri. Thus, through the sculpture of the Pisans the painting of

the school of Giotto received at second-hand the teachings of antiquity.

Sculpture had created painting, painting now belonged to the painters.

In the hands of Giotto it developed within a few years into an art which

seemed almost mature, an art dealing victoriously with its materials,

triumphantly solving its problems, executing as if by miracle all that

was demanded of it. But Giottesque art appeared perfect merely because

it was limited; it did all that was required of it, because that which

was required was little; it was not asked to reproduce the real, nor to

represent the beautiful, it was asked merely to suggest a character, a

situation, a story.

The artistic development of a nation has its exact parallel in the

artistic development of an individual. The child uses his pencil to tell

a story, satisfied with balls and sticks as body, head, and legs,

provided he and his friends can associate with them the ideas in their

minds: the youth sets himself to copy what he sees, to reproduce forms,

and effects, without any aim beyond the mere pleasure of copying; the

mature artist strives to obtain forms and effects of which he approves,

he seeks for beauty. In the life of Italian painting generations of men

who flourished at the beginning of the sixteenth century are the mature

artists; the men of the fifteenth century are the inexperienced youths;

the Giottesques are the children--children Titanic and seraph-like, but

children nevertheless, and, like all children, learning more perhaps in

their few years than can the youth of the man learn in a lifetime.

Like the child, the Giottesque painter wished to show a situation or

express a story, and for this purpose the absolute realization of

objects was unnecessary. Giottesque art is not incorrect art, it is

generalized art; it is an art of mere outline. The Giottesques could

draw with great accuracy the hand, the form of the fingers, the bend of

the limb, they could give to perfection its whole gesture and movement,

they could produce a correct and spirited outline, but within this

correct outline marked off in dark paint there is but a vague, uniform

mass of pale colour; the body of the hand is missing, and there remains

only its ghost, visible indeed, but unsubstantial, without weight or

warmth, eluding the grasp. The difference between this spectre hand of

the Giottesques, and the sinewy, muscular hand which can shake and crush

of Masaccio and Signorelli, or the soft hand with throbbing pulse and

warm pressure of Perugino and Bellini,--this difference is typical of

the difference between the art of the fourteenth century and the art of

the fifteenth century; the first suggests, the second realizes; the one

gives impalpable outlines, the other gives tangible bodies; the

Giottesque cares for the figure only, inasmuch as it displays an action,

he reduces it to a semblance, a phantom, to the mere exponent of an

idea; the man of the Renaissance cares for the figure, inasmuch as it is

a living organism, he gives it substance and weight, he makes it stand

out as an animate reality. But despite its early triumphs, the

Giottesque style, by its inherent nature, forbade any progress; it

reached its limits at once, and the followers of Giotto look almost as

if they were his predecessors, for the simple reason that, being unable

to advance, they were forced to retrograde. The limited amount of

artistic realization required to present to the mind of the spectator a

situation or an allegory had been obtained by Giotto himself, and

bequeathed by him to his followers, who, finding it more than sufficient

for their purposes, and having no incentive to further acquisition in

the love of form and reality for their own sake, worked on with their

master's materials, composing and recomposing, but adding nothing of

their own. Giotto had observed Nature with passionate interest, because,

although its representation was only a means to an end, it was a means

which required to be mastered, and as such became in itself a sort of

secondary aim; but the followers of Giotto merely utilized his

observations of Nature, and in so doing gradually conventionalized and

debased these second-hand observations. Giotto's forms are wilfully

incomplete, because they aim at mere suggestion, but they are not

conventional: they are diagrams, not symbols, and thence it is that

Giotto seems nearer to the Renaissance than do his latest followers, not

excepting even Orcagna. Painting, which had made the most prodigious

strides from Giunta to Cimabue, and from Cimabue to Giotto, had got

enclosed within a vicious circle, in which it moved for nearly a century

neither backwards nor forwards: painters were satisfied with suggestion;

and as long as they were satisfied, no progress was possible.

The Contemporary Review, Volume 36, September 1879 · 第 5 / 25 段