with the greatest neglect. Still, Myron, as Pliny remarks, (48) was censurable in both points; and according to the same authority, Pythagoras Leontinus was the first, who distinguished himself by an elegant execution of the hair. What Phidias learnt from the poet, the other artists learnt from Phidias. I will quote an example of this kind, which has always very much pleased me. I would recal to my readers the observations which Hogarth has made upon the Apollo Belvidere : "These two master 66 pieces of art, the Apollo and Antinous, are seen together in the same palace at Rome, where the "Antinous fills the spectator with admiration only, "whilst the Apollo strikes him with surprise, and, 66 as travellers express themselves, with an appearance "of something more than human; which they of course are always at a loss to describe; and, this "effect, they say, is the more astonishing, as upon "examination its disproportion is evident even to a 66 common eye. One of the best sculptors we have "in England, who lately went to see them, confirmed to me what has been now said, particularly as to the legs and thighs being too long, and too large for the upper parts. And Andrea Sacchi, 66 one of the great Italian painters, seems to have "been of the same opinion, or he would hardly d Plinius, xxxiv. 19. 4. Hic primus nervos et venas expressit; capillumque diligentius. e Hogarth's Analysis of Beauty, chap. xi. "have given his Apollo, crowning Pasquilini the "musician, the exact proportion of the Antinous, (in "a famous picture of his now in England,) as other"wise it seems to be a direct copy from the Apollo. Although in very great works we often see an "inferior part neglected, yet here it cannot be the case, because in a fine statue, just proportion is one of its essential beauties; therefore it stands "to reason, that these limbs must have been length"ened on purpose, otherwise it might easily have "been avoided. "So that if we examine the beauties of this "figure thoroughly, we may reasonably conclude, "that what has been hitherto thought so unaccount"ably excellent in its general appearance, hath been 66 owing to what hath seemed a blemish in a part of "it." All this is very striking; and already Homer, I may add, had felt and indicated, that there is an exalted appearance, which springs merely from this addition of size in the proportions of the feet and thighs; for when Antenor compares the form of Ulysses, with that of Menelaus, he says' Στάντων μὲν, Μενέλαος ὑπείρεχεν ἐυρέας ὤμους, "When both stood, Menelaus towered above the "other with his broad shoulders; but when both "sat, Ulysses had the nobler presence." Since, f Iliad, T. iii. 210. therefore, he gained when sitting the presence which Menelaus lost in that position, it is easy to determine what proportion the upper parts of each bore to their feet and thighs. The former were of a disproportionate size in Ulysses, the latter in Menelaus. M CHAPTER XXIII. IN beauty, a single unbecoming part may disturb the harmonious effect of many, without the object necessarily becoming ugly; for ugliness too requires several unbecoming parts, all of which we must be able to comprehend at the same view, before we experience sensations the opposite of those which beauty produces. According to this, therefore, ugliness, in its essence, could be no subject of poetry; yet Homer has painted extreme ugliness in Thersites; and this ugliness is described according to its parts near one another. Why in the case of ugliness did he allow himself a licence from, which he had so judiciously abstained in that of beauty? It has been shown that a successive enumeration of its elements will annihilate the effect of the latter; will not a similar cause produce a similar effect in the case of the former? Undoubtedly it will; but it is in this very fact that the justification of Homer lies. The poet can only take advantage of ugliness, so far as it is reduced in his description into a less repugnant appearance of bodily imperfection; and ceases, as it were, in point of effect, to be ugliness. Thus, what he cannot make use of by itself, he can as an ingredient for the purpose of producing and strengthening certain mixed sensations, with which he must entertain us in the want of those purely agreeable. These mixed feelings are the ridiculous and the horrible. Homer makes Thersites ugly in order to make him ridiculous. He is not made so, however, merely by his ugliness; for ugliness is an imperfection; and a contrast of perfections with imperfections is required to produce the ridiculous. This is the explanation of my friend, to which I might add, that this contrast must not be too sharp and glaring; and that the contrasts, to continue in the language of the artist, must be of such a kind, that they are capable of blending into one another. The wise and virtuous Æsop does not become ridiculous, because the ugliness of Thersites has been attributed to him. story of his deformity is an awkward monkish fabrication, which arose from a wish that the yeλotov in his moral instructive fables should be illustrated by the deformity in his own person). For a misshapen body, and a beautiful mind are as oil and vinegar; however much you may shake them together, they always remain distinct to the taste. a (The They will not amalgamate and produce a third quality. The body produces annoyance, the soul pleasure; each its own effect. It is only when the deformed body is also Philosophical Works of Moses Mendelssohn, vol. ii. p. 23. |