Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

the painter draw feveral pictures from the fame palace: but as to the type, or original model, it is fingular, for if there were two which refembled each other, they would be no longer original; they would have an original model common to both, and that alone would be the real type. All that I have faid here of painting is applicable to theatrical imitation; but before we de. fcend to this, let us examine a little clofer the imitations of the painter. He does not only confine his imitations in his pictures to the images of things, that is, the fenfible productions of nature, and the works of art; but he does not even

endeavour to give an exact and true reprefentation of the object, but the appearance. He paints it as it feems to be, and not as it really is; he paint it in one fingle point of view; and this point of view being the choice of his own will, he renders, according as he pleafes, the fame object agreeable, or deformed, to the eyes of the fpectator. Wherefore it does not depend upon them to judge of the thing imitated, in itfelf; but they are compelled to judge of it upon certain appearances, and as it pleafes the imita tor; they often judge by mere habit, and there are arbiters even in imitation*.

* Experience evinces that the finest harmony does not flatter an ear that is not prepoffeffed in its favour; that nothing but cuftom renders concord agree. able, and makes us diftinguish it from the moft diffonant intervals. As to the fimplicity of the connection, upon which it has been endeavoured to lay the ba fis of the pleasure of harmony, I have fet forth in the Encyclopedia, under the word Conformance, that this principle is not to be maintained, and I think it is eafy to prove all our harmony is a barbarous, gothic invention, which has, only by the extent of time, become an imitative art. A ftudious magiftrate, who at his leisure hours, inftead of going to hear mufic, amufes himself to fathom its fyftems, has discovered that the fimilitude of a fifth, is only as two to three by approximation, and that this fimilitude is ftri&tly incommenfurable. No one at leaft can deny its being fo upon our harpsichords, by virtue of the modification, which does not prevent thefe fifths, thus modified, to appear agreeable to us. Now, in fuch a cafe, where is the fimplicity of the connection which fhould tender them fifths? We are not yet certain whether our fyftem of mufic is not founded upon mere conventions; neither do we know, whether or not, the principles are entirely arbitrary; or whether another fyftem, fubftituted in its place, would not by cuftom equally pleafe us. This question is difcuffed in another place. By a pretty natural analogy, thefe reflections might excite others upon the fubicct of painting, as the flyle of a picture, the agreement of colours, certain parts of the defign, which are more arbitrary than is generally believed, and where imitation itself muft fubmit to the rules of convention. Why dare not painters attempt some new imitations, which have nothing against them but their novelty, and which, on the other hand, feem to fpring from the art? For example, it is only a play for them to make a plain furface appear in relief; how comes it then that none amongst them have endeavoured to give the appearance of a plain surface to a relief? If they make a flat ceiling appear vaulted, why do not they make a vaulted one appear flat? fhades, they will fay, change appearances, at various points of view, which is not the cafe with plain furfaces. Let us remove this difficulty, and defire a painter to paint and colour a ftatue in fuch a manner as to appear flat, even, and of the fame colour, without any defign, in only one light, and a fingle point of view. Thefe obfervations would not, perhaps, be unworthy the confideration of the enlightened virtuofo, who has reafoned fo well upon the art.

The

The art of reprefenting objects is very different from that of mak. ing them known. The firft pleases without inftructing; the latter in ftructs without pleafing. The artift who draws a plan, and takes exact dimenfions, does nothing that is very agreeable to the fight; where. fore his work is fought for only by artifts: but he who traces a perfpective, flatters the multitude and the ignorant, because he teaches them nothing, and offers them only the appearance of what they knew before. Add to this, that menfuration fupplying us with fucceffive dimenfions, gradually teaches us the truth of things; whereas appearance prefents us with all at once, and with the opinion of a greater extent of understanding, the fenfes are flattered by the feduction of felf-love.

The reprefentations of the painter, deftitute of all reality, do not produce this appearance, but by the affiftance of fome trifling fhades, and fome flight refemblance, which he impofes for the thing itfelf. If there were any mixture of truth in his imitations, he fhould be acquainted with the object that he imitates; he should be a naturalift, a workman, a phyfician, before he were a painter. But, on the contrary, the extent of his art is founded only in his ignorance, and the only reafon he paints, is, becaufe he has no occafion for any knowledge. When he offers us a meditating philofopher, an aftro nomer ftudying the planets, a geometrician drawing fections; a turner at work; does he thereby know how to work, to calculate, to meditate, to obferve the planets? not in the leaft; he only knows

how to paint. Incapable of giving a reafon for any of the things that are in his picture, he doubly impofes upon us by his imitation, as well in offering us a vague and fictitious appearance, the fault of which, neither he nor we can diftinguifh, as by ufing falfe measures to produce this appearance; that is to fay, by changing all the real dimenfions according to the laws of perfpective; fo that if the fenfes of the fpectator are not deceived, but view the picture as it really is, he will be impofed upon, as to the appearance of things reprefented, or elfe will find them all fictitious. The illufion will nevertheless be fuch, that fools and children will be impofed upon, and fancy they fee objects which the painter himfelf is unacquainted with, and workmen whofe art he knows no

thing of.

Let us from this example fufpect thofe people who are fo univerfal, who are proficients in every art, adepts in every fcience, who know every thing, reafon upon every thing, and feem to unite in them. felves alone the talents of all mankind. If any one fhould tell us he is acquainted with fuch a wonderful man, affure him, without hefitation, that he is the dupe to the impofitions of a quack, and that all the knowledge of this great philofopher, hath no other foundation than the ignorauce of his admirers, who cannot diftinguish error from truth, nor imitation from the thing imitated.

This leads us to an examination of tragic writers; and Homer, their chief. For feveral aver, that a tragic poet fhould know every thing; that he should have fathom

ed

ed the depths of virtue and vice, policy and morality, laws both divine and human, and that he fhould have a knowledge of every thing that he introduces, or elfe he will never produce any thing that is good. Let us then inquire whe. ther thofe who raife poetry to this point of fublimity, are not themfelves impofed upon by the imitative poets; whether their admi. ration for thefe immortal works do not prevent their feeing how diftant they are from truth, and being fenfible that they are colours with out confiftency, mere phantoms and fhadows, and that to delineate fuch images, nothing is lefs neceffary than the knowledge of truth; or if there be indeed any real uti. lity in all this, or if the poets in effect know that multiplicity of things, of which the vulgar fancy they fpeak fo well.

Tell me, my friends, if any one had this choice, to poffefs his miftrefs's picture or the original, which do you think he would prefer? If an artift could equally produce the thing imitated, or its likeness, would he chufe the latter, in objects of any price; and would he content himfelf with the picture of a houfe, when he could actually construct himself a real one? If then the tragic poet was really acquainted with thofe things he pretends to paint, if he had the qualities he defcribes, if he knew himself how to do what he makes the dramatis perfonæ perform, would he not exercife their talents? would he not practise their virtues? would he not fooner erect menu.

ments to his own glory than theirs and would he not rather chufe to perform himfelf worthy actions, than to confine himself to the praife of others? certainly his merit in this cafe would be quite different; there is no reafon to be affigned why having the power to do the moft, he fhould do the leaft. But what muft we think of him who would teach us, what he could not himself learn? and who would laugh to fee a group of ideots go to admire all the fprings of policy, and the human heart brought into play by a rattle twenty years of age, to whom the most fenfelefs of the audience would not truft with the least part of their business?

Let us lay afide what relates to talents and arts. When Homer talks fo well of the knowledge of Machaon, do not call him to account for his own about the fame matters. Let us not defire to know the patients he has cured, the pupils he has trained to phyfic, his masterpieces of engraving and chafing, the workmen he has form. ed, or the monuments of his induftry. Let us fuffer him to teach us all this, without knowing whe ther he himself is inftructed in it. But when he entertains us with wars, government, laws, fciences, which require the greatest length of ftudy, and which are the moff immediately connected with the happiness of man, dare we interrupt him a moment thus to inter- ' | rogate him? oh divine Homer! we admire your leffons; and fhall not hefitate to follow them, as foon as

It was the common opinion of the ancients, that all the tragic writers were only the copyifts, and the imitators of Homer. Some one faid of the tragedies of Euripides, thefe are the fragments of Homer's repast, which are carried home by a guest.

[ocr errors]

we fee how you yourself practifed them, if you be really what you take fo much pains to appear? if your imitations do not hold the third rank, but the fecond after truth, let us fee in yourself the model which you depict in your works; fhew us the captain, the legiflator, the fage, whofe portraits you fo boldly difplay to us. Greece and all the world, celebrate the good actions, of great men who poffeffed thofe fublime arts, whofe precepts coft you fo little. Lycurgus gave laws to Sparta, Charondis to Sicily and Italy, Minos to Crete, Solon to us. Is the object the duties of life, the wife government of the houfe, the conduct of a citizen in every ftation? Thales of Miletta, and the Scythian Anacharfis furnished at once precepts and examples. Are these fame duties to be taught to others, and philofophers and fages to be inftituted who practife what they have been taught? this was the talk of Zoroafter to the Magii, Pythagoras to his difciples, Lycurgus to his fellow-citizens. But you, Homer, if it be true, that you have excelled in fo many parts; if it be true that you can inftruct men and render them better; if it be true that you unite knowledge with imitation, and learning to words; let us fee thofe works that evince your abilities, the ftates that you have inftituted, the virtues which do you honour, the battles you have gained, the riches that you have acquired. How comes it that you have not fecured erowds of friends, that you have

not been beloved and honoured by all the world? how could it happen that you attracted none but the fingle Cleophilus? and even here you only nourished ingratitude. What! a Protagoras of Abdera, Prodicee of Chio, without iffuing from a private fimple life, to convene their contemporaries around them, to perfuade them to leara from them alone the art of governing their country, their families, and themfelves; and yet fuch won derful men as a Hefiod, and a Homer, who knew every thing who could teach every thing to men of their time, to be fo neglected by them as to wander and beg through. out the univerfe, chanting their verfes from city to city like vile ballad-fingers! In thofe barbarous ages, when the preffure of ignorance began to be felt, when the want and avidity of knowledge concurred to render every man a little more enlightened than others, ufeful and refpectable; if these had been as learned as they appeared to be, if they had poffeffed all the qualities which they fo pompously blazoned, they would have paffed for prodigies; they would have been fought for by every one; all would have eagerly pufhed forward to have feen them, to poffefs, to keep them, and dif play their hofpitality towards them; and thofe who could not have fixed their refidence with them, would rather have followed them all over the earth, than to have loft fo fcarce an opportunity to be inftructed, and become fuch heroes as thofe they admired*.

Let

Plato does not fay, that a man who is ftudious of his interest and versed in lucrative matters, cannot, by the fale of poetry, or other means, obtain a great VOL. X.

N

fortune.

Let us then agree that all poets, to begin by Homer, do not reprefent us in their pictures the model of virtuous talents, and the quali ties of the foul, nor the other objects of the understanding and fenfes which they have not in themselves, but the images of all these objects, drawn from foreign objects, and that they do not approach nearer to truth in this, when they offer us the features of a hero or a captain, than a painter who, depicting a geometrician or 'a workman, who does not confider the art, which he is entirely unacquainted with, but only the colours and figure. Thus are names and words illufive to thofe, who fenfible of rhyme and harmony, let themselves be charmed by the enchanting art of poetry, and yielding to feduction by the attraction of pleasure, infomuch that they take the images of objects that are unknown, both by them and their authors, for the objects themfelves, and fearful of being difabufed of the error which flatters them, either by impofing upon their ignorance, or by thofe agree able fenfations with which this error is accompanied.

In effect, diveft the most bril. liant of thefe pictures of the charms of verfe, and the foreign ornaments which embellished them; ftrip them of the colouring of poetry and style, and leave nothing but the defign, and with difficulty you will remember it, or if it can be recollected, it will no longer pleafe, refembling thofe children rather

pretty than handsome, who, embellished with nothing but the flower of youth, lofe with it all their graces, without having loft any of their features.

Not only the imitator or author of reprefentation is unacquainted with any thing but the appearance of the thing imitated; but a real knowledge of this thing does not belong even to him who made it. I fee in this picture thofe horfes which drew, Hector's car; these horfes have harneffes, bits, and reins; the filversmith, the blackfmith, the fadler, produced thefe different things, the painter has reprefented them; but neither the workman who is acquainted with them, nor the painter who deli neates them, knows what they fhould be; it is the equerry or their leader who determines their form by their use; it is he alone that can judge whether they are good or bad, and is able to correct their faults. Thus, in every poffible in ftrument, there are three practical objects to be confidered, namely, the ufe, the conftruction, and the imitation.

These two latter arts evidently depend upon the fir, and there is nothing imitable in nature, to which the fame diftinctions are not applicable.

If the utility, goodness, and beauty of an inftrument, an animal, or an action, relate to the ufe that may be derived from it; if it belong only to him who fets it in motion to give its model, and to judge if this model be faithfully executed; the imitator is fofa:

fortune. But there is a great difference between enriching oneself and becoming il uftrious by the trade of a poet, and the enriching oneself and being illuftrios by the talents which the poet pretends to teach. It is true, that we might in ftance to Plato the example of Tirteus; but he acquitted himself with diftinction, and was rather confidered as an orator than a poet.

from

« ForrigeFortsett »