and "scuto" should be taken separately, or the last read with the following words, "projectaque hasta?" If we only insert a single comma the correspondence between the statue and description is complete. The statue is that of a soldier, “qui obnixo genu,(55) scuto projectaque hasta impetum hostis excipit." It represents Chabrias' action; and is the statue of Chabrias. That the comma is really wanting is proved by the que affixed to the projecta, which is superfluous if obnixo genu scuto," are connected; and in fact some editions have omitted it on that account. The form of the characters in the artist's inscription upon the statue coincides exactly with the great antiquity which, under this supposition, must be accorded to the statue; and indeed Winkelmann has himself inferred from them that it is the most ancient of the statues now in Rome, on which the masters have recorded their names. I leave it to his acute glance to determine whether he observes anything in its style which is in contradiction to my opinion. Should he honour my suggestion with his approval, I shall flatter myself that I have produced a better instance how happily the classical authors may be illustrated by the ancient works of art, and these last in their turn by the first, than can be found in the whole folio of Spence. CHAPTER XXIX. WITH all the boundless reading, and most extensive and refined knowledge of art which Winkelmann has applied to his task, he has worked in the noble confidence of the ancient artists, who expended all their industry upon the main object, and either executed the parts of less importance with, as it were, intentional negligence, or left them to the hands of any chance artist. It is no small merit, to have only fallen into faults that any one might have avoided; faults which are seen at the first cursory reading; and which if I notice at all it is only to remind certain people, who think that they alone have eyes, that they are not worth remarking. Already, in his writings upon the imitation of Grecian Works of Art, Winkelmann has been several times misled by Junius. Junius is a very insidious author. His whole work is a cento, and though he always uses the words of the ancients, he is constantly applying passages to painting, which in their original context bear no reference whatever to it. When e. g. Winkelmann desires to teach us that perfection can no more be reached by the mere imi tation of nature in art, than it can in poetry, and that the painter as well as poet must prefer the impossible, which is probable, to the merely possible: he adds, “the possibility and truth, which Longinus requires "of a painter, as opposed to the incredible in poetry, "is perfectly consistent with it." But this addition had much better have been omitted; for it exhibits a seeming contradiction in the two greatest critics on art, which is altogether without foundation. It is not true that Longinus ever said anything of the kind. He makes a somewhat similar remark upon eloquence and the art of poetry, but in no way upon poetry and painting. Ως δ ̓ ἕτερόν τι ἡ ρητορικὴ φαντασία βούλεται, καὶ ἕτερον ἡ παρὰ ποιηταῖς, ουκ ἀν λάθοι σε, he writes to his friend Terentian; Ου μὴν ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν παρὰ τοῖς ποιηταῖς μυθικωτέραν ἔχει τὴν ὑπερέκπτωσιν, καὶ παντῇ τὸ πιστὸν ὑπεραίρουσαν· τῆς δε ῥητορικῆς φαντασίας, κάλλιστον ἀεὶ τὸ ἔμπρακτον καὶ ἐναληθές. Only Junius substitutes painting for oratory and it was in him and not in Longinus that Winkelmann read,Þ "Præsertim cum poeticæ cr : phantasiæ finis sit ἔκπληξις, pictoriæ vero, ἐναργεία, “ καὶ τὰ μὲν παρὰ τοῖς ποιηταῖς, ut loquitur idem True, they are Longinus' words, Longinus." but not Longinus' meaning. The same must have been the case with the following observation : "All actions,” he says, C Edit. T. Fabri, p. 36-39. On the Imitation of Greek Works, p. 23. "and attitudes of Greek figures, which are not "marked by the character of wisdom, but are "too vehement and wild, fell into a fault, which "the ancient artists called parenthyrsus." The ancient artists? That can only be proved out of Junius; for parenthyrsus was a technical term in rhetoric, and perhaps, as the passage in Longinus appears to intimate, used only by Theodorus. Τούτῳ παρακεῖται τρίτον τι κακίας εἶδος ἐν τοῖς παθητικοῖς, ὅπερ ὁ Θεόδωρος παρένθυρσον ἐκάλει· ἔστι δὲ πάθος ἄκαιρον καὶ κενόν, ἔνθα μὴ δεῖ πάθους· ἢ ἄμετρον ἔνθα μετρίου δεῖ. I even doubt whether generally this word can be transferred to painting. For in eloquence and poetry there is a pathos which may be carried to its extreme point, without becoming aρévOupoos. It is the deepest pathos out of place θυρσος. that is parenthyrsus; while in the painting extreme pathos is always parenthyrsus, even if it can be perfectly justified by the circumstances of the person who expresses it. According to all appearance therefore the various inaccuracies in the history of art have arisen merely from Winkelmann having in haste consulted Junius instead of the originals, e. g. when he is proving by examples that among the Greeks all excellence in every art and craft was especially valued, and that the best artizan even in the most trifling manufactures might succeed in immortalizing his name. Τμημα, Β. d He quotes the following instance among others :* We know the name of the maker of a particularly "accurate balance, or pair of scales: it is Parthe"nius." Winkelmann can only have read the words of Juvenal to which he is here referring, "Lances Parthenio factas," in the list of Junius; for if he had referred to Juvenal himself, he would not have been misled by the equivocal meaning of the word lanx," but would have seen at once that the poet was speaking not of a balance and scales, but of plates and dishes. Juvenal is praising Catullus because in a perilous storm at sea he had thrown all his valuable baggage overboard, in order that he and the ship might not go down together. These valuables he describes, and says: દ Ille nec argentum dubitabat mittere, lances Cælati, biberet quo callidus emptor Olynthi. What can lances mean here, joined as it is with goblets and urns, but "plates and dishes ?" and all Juvenal intends to say is, that Catullus threw overboard his whole service of plate, among which were some embossed dishes of the workmanship of Parthenius. "Parthenius cœlatoris nomen," says an old scholiast. But when Grangäus in his commentary |