Rome.
Those who have a real pleasure in
contemplating the remains of antique,
and the noblest specimens of modern
architecture, who are struck with the inimitable
delicacy and expression of Greek
sculpture, and wish to compare it with the
most successful efforts of the moderns, and
who have an unwearied admiration of the
charms of painting, may, provided they
have not more important avocations elsewhere,
employ a full year with satisfaction
in this city.
What is called a regular course with an
Antiquarian, generally takes up about six
weeks; employing three hours a-day, you
may, in that time, visit all the churches,
palaces, villas, and ruins, worth seeing, in
or near Rome. But after having made this
course, however distinctly every thing may
have been explained by the Antiquarian,
if you do not visit the most interesting again
and again, and reflect on them at more
leisure, your labour will be of little use;
for the objects are so various, and those
you see on one day, so apt to be effaced
by, or confounded with, those you behold
on another, that you must carry away a
very faint and indistinct recollection of any.
Many travellers have experienced the truth
of this observation.
One young English gentleman, who
happens not to be violently smitten with
the charms of virtù, and scorns to affect
what he does not feel, thought that two or
three hours a-day, for a month or six weeks
together, was rather too much time to bestow
on a pursuit in which he felt no pleasure,
and saw very little utility. The only
advantage which, in his opinion, the
greater part of us reaped from our six
weeks tour, was, that we could say, we had
seen a great many fine things which he had
not seen. This was a superiority which
he could not brook, and which he resolved
we should not long enjoy. Being fully
convinced, that the business might be,
with a little exertion, dispatched in a very
short space of time, he prevailed on a
proper person to attend him; ordered a
post-chaise and four horses to be ready
early in the morning, and driving through
churches, palaces, villas, and ruins, with
all possible expedition, he fairly saw, in
two days, all that we had beheld during
our crawling course of six weeks. I found
afterwards, by the list he kept of what he
had seen, that we had not the advantage
of him in a single picture, or the most
mutilated remnant of a statue.
I do not propose this young gentleman’s
plan, as the very best possible; but of this
I am certain, that he can give as satisfactory
an account of the curiosities of Rome,
as some people of my acquaintance who
viewed them with equal sensibility, and at
a great deal more leisure.
Those travellers who cannot remain a
considerable time at Rome, would do well
to get a judicious list of the most interesting
objects in architecture, sculpture, and
painting, that are to be seen here; they
ought to visit these frequently, and these
only, by which means they will acquire a
strong and distinct impression of what they
see; instead of that transient and confused
idea which a vast number of things, viewed
superficially, and in a hurry, leave in the
mind. After they have examined, with
due attention, the most magnificent and
best preserved remains of ancient architecture,
very few have satisfaction in viewing
a parcel of old bricks, which, they are
told, formed the foundation of the baths of
some of the Emperors. And there are not
many who would regret their not having
seen great numbers of statues and pictures
of inferior merit, when they had beheld all
that are universally esteemed the best.
Would it not be highly judicious, therefore,
in the greatest number of travellers,
without abridging the usual time of the
course, to make it much less comprehensive?
Besides churches, there are about thirty
palaces in Rome, as full of pictures as the
walls can bear. The Borghese Palace
alone is said to contain above sixteen
hundred, all original. There are also ten
or twelve villas in the neighbourhood of
this city, which are usually visited by
strangers. You may judge from this, what
a task they undertake, who resolve to go
through the whole; and what kind of an
idea they are likely to carry away, who
perform this task during a stay of a few
months. Of the villas, the Pineiana, which
belongs to the Borghese family, is the most
remarkable. I shall confine myself to a
few cursory remarks on some of the most
esteemed curiosities it contains. The Hermaphrodite,
of which you have seen so
many prints and models, is accounted by
many, one of the finest pieces of sculpture
in the world. The mattress, upon which
this fine figure reclines, is the work of
the Cavalier Bernini, and nothing can
be more admirably executed. Some critics
say, he has performed his task too well, because
the admiration of the spectator is
divided between the statue and the mattress.
This, however, ought not to be imputed as
a fault to that great artist; since he condescended
to make it at all, it was his business
to make it as perfect as possible. I have
heard of an artist at Versailles, in a different
line, who attempted something of
the same nature; he had exerted all his
abilities in making a periwig for a celebrated
preacher, who was to preach on a
particular occasion before the court; and
he imagined he had succeeded to a miracle.
“I’ll be hanged,” said he to one of his
companions, “if his Majesty, or any man
of taste, will pay much attention to the
sermon to-day.”
Among the antiques, there is a Centaur
in marble, with a Cupid mounted on his
back. The latter has the cestus of Venus,
and the ivy crown of Bacchus, in allusion
to beauty and wine; he beats the Centaur
with his fist, and seems to kick with violence
to drive him along. The Centaur throws
back his head and eyes with a look of remorse,
as if he were unwilling, though
forced, to proceed. The execution of this
group, is admired by those who look upon
it merely as a jeu d’esprit; but it acquires
additional merit, when considered as allegorical
of men who are hurried on by the
violence of their passions, and lament their
own weakness, while they find themselves
unable to resist.
There is another figure which claims attention,
more on account of the allegory
than the sculpture. This is a small statue of
Venus Cloacina, trampling on an impregnated
uterus, and tearing the wings of
Cupid. The allegory indicates, that prostitution
is equally destructive of generation
and love. Keysler mentioning this, calls
it a statue of Venus, lamenting her rashness
in clipping Cupid’s wings.
The statue called Zingara, or the Fortune-teller,
is antique, all but the head,
which is Bernini’s; the face has a strong
expression of that sly shrewdness, which
belongs to those whose trade it is to impose
on the credulity of the vulgar; with a
great look of some modern gypsies I have
seen, who have imposed most egregiously
on the self-love and credulity of the great.
Seneca dying in the Bath, in touchstone;
round his middle is a girdle of yellow
marble; he stands in a bason of blueish
marble lined with porphyry; his knees
seem to bend under him, from weakness;
his features denote faintness, languor, and
the approach of death; the eyes are enamelled,
which gives the countenance a
fierce and disagreeable look. Colouring
the eyes always has a bad effect in sculpture;
they form too violent a contrast with
the other features, which remain of the
natural colour of the marble. When the
eyes are enamelled, it is requisite that all
the face should be painted, to produce the
agreeable harmony of life.
The Faun dandling an infant Bacchus,
is one of the gayest figures that can be
imagined.
In this Villa, there are also some highly
esteemed pieces by Bernini. Æneas carrying
his father; David slinging the stone at
Goliah; and Apollo pursuing Daphne: the
last is generally reckoned Bernini’s master-piece;
for my part, I have so bad a taste
as to prefer the second. The figure of
David is nervous, with great anatomical
justness, and a strong expression of keenness
and exertion to hit his mark, and kill his
enemy; but the countenance of David
wants dignity. An ancient artist, perhaps,
could not have given more ardour, but he
would have given more nobleness to the
features of David. Some may say, that as
he was but a shepherd, it was proper
he should have the look of a clown; but it
ought to be remembered, that David was a
very extraordinary man; and if the artist
who formed the Belvedere Apollo, or if
Agasias the Ephesian, had treated the same
subject, I imagine they would have rendered
their work more interesting, by blending
the noble air of an hero with the simple
appearance of a shepherd. The figures of
Apollo and Daphne err in a different manner.
The face and figure of Apollo are
deficient in simplicity; the noble simplicity
of the best antique statues: he runs with
affected graces, and his astonishment at the
beginning transformation of his mistress
is not, in my opinion, naturally expressed,
but seems rather the exaggerated astonishment
of an actor. The form and shape of
Daphne are delicately executed; but in her
face, beauty is, in some degree, sacrificed
to the expression of terror; her features
are too much distorted by fear. An ancient
artist would have made her less afraid,
that she might have been more beautiful.
In expressing terror, pain, and other impressions,
there is a point where the beauty
of the finest countenance ends, and deformity
begins. I am indebted to Mr. Lock for
this observation. In some conversations I
had with him at Cologny, on the subject
of Sculpture, that gentleman remarked,
that it was in the skilful and temperate
exertion of her powers, in this noblest province
of the art, expression, that ancient
sculpture so much excelled the modern.
She knew its limits, and had ascertained
them with precision. As far as expression
would go hand in hand with grace and
beauty, in subjects intended to excite sympathy,
she indulged her chisel; but where
agony threatened to induce distortion, and
obliterate beauty, she wisely set bounds to
imitation, remembering, that though it
may be moral to pity ugliness in distress,
it is more natural to pity beauty in the same
situation; and that her business was not to
give the strongest representation of nature,
but the representation which would interest
us most. That ingenious gentleman, I remember,
observed at the same time, that
the Greek artists have been accused of
having sacrificed character too much to technical
proportion. He continued to observe,
that what is usually called character in a
face, is probably excess in some of its parts,
and particularly of those which are under
the influence of the mind, the leading
passion of which marks some feature for its
own. A perfectly symmetrical face bears
no mark of the influence of either the passions
or the understanding, and reminds
you of Prometheus’s clay without his fire.
On the other hand, the moderns, by sacrificing
too liberally those technical proportions,
which, when religiously observed,
produce beauty, to expression, have generally
lost the very point which they contended
for. They seemed to think, that
when a passion was to be expressed, it could
not be expressed too strongly; and that
sympathy always followed in an exact proportion
with the strength of the passion,
and the force of its expression. But passions,
in their extreme, instead of producing
sympathy, generally excite feelings
diametrically opposite. A vehement and
clamorous demand of pity is received with
neglect, and sometimes with disgust; whilst
a patient and silent acquiescence under the
pressure of mental affliction, or severe bodily
pain, finds every heart upon an unison
with its sufferings. The ancients knew to
what extent expression may be carried, with
good effect. The author of the famous
Laocoon, in the Vatican, knew where to
stop, and if the figure had been alone, it
would have been perfect; there is exquisite
anguish in the countenance, but it is borne
in silence, and without distortion of features.
Puget thought he could go beyond
the author of Laocoon; he gave voice to
his Milo; he made him roaring with pain,
and lost the sympathy of the spectator. In
confirmation of this doctrine, Mr. Lock
desired, that when I should arrive at Rome,
I would examine, with attention, the celebrated
statue of Niobe, in the Villa de
Medici. I have done so again and again,
and find his remarks most strikingly just.
The author of the Niobe has had the judgment
not to exhibit all the distress which
he might have placed in her countenance.
This consummate artist was afraid of
disturbing her features too much, knowing
full well, that the point where he was to
expect the most sympathy was there, where
distress co-operated with beauty, and where
our pity met our love. Had he sought it
one step farther, in expression, he had lost
it. It is unjust, you will say, that men
should not sympathise with homely women
in distress, in the same degree as they do
with the beautiful. That is very true; but
it is the business of the sculptor to apply
his art to men as he finds them, not as
they ought to be. Beside, this principle
has full force, and is strictly true, only in
sculpture and painting. For, in real life,
a woman may engage a man’s esteem and
affections by a thousand fine qualities, and
a thousand endearing ties, though she is
entirely deficient in beauty.
This Villa is also enriched by one of the
most animated statues in the world, and
which, in the opinion of many men of
taste, comes nearest, and in the judgment
of some, equals the Apollo of the Vatican.
I mean the statue of the fighting Gladiator.
It is difficult, however, to compare
two pieces whose merits are so different.
The Apollo is full of grace, majesty, and
conscious superiority; he has shot his arrow,
and knows its success. There is, indeed,
a strong expression of indignation,
which opens his lips, distends his nostrils,
and contracts his brows; but it is the indignation
of a superior being, who punishes
while he scorns the efforts of his enemy.
The Gladiator, on the contrary, full of fire
and youthful courage, opposes an enemy
that he does not fear; but whom, it is
evident, he thinks worthy of his utmost
exertion; every limb, nerve, and sinew,
is in action; his ardent features indicate
the strongest desire, the highest expectation,
but not a perfect security of
victory. His shape is elegant as well
as nervous, expressive of agility as well
as strength, and equally distant from the
brawny strength of the Farnesian Hercules,
and the effeminate softness of the
Belvedere Antinous. The action is transitive
(if the term may be so used), and preparatory
only to another disposition of body
and limbs, which are to enable him to
strike, and which he cannot do in his present
position; for the moment his right
arm crossed the perpendicular line of his
right leg, the whole figure would be out
of its centre. His action seems a combination
of the defensive and offensive; defensive
in the present moment, the left arm
being advanced to secure the adversary’s
blow; and preparing for offence in the
next, the left leg already taking its spring
to advance in order to give the figure a
centre, which may enable it to strike, without
risk of falling, if the blow should not
take place. The action of the right arm,
however, will always remain in some degree
problematical, the ancient being lost;
by whom the modern arm is restored, I
never heard.
Though this fine figure generally goes
by the name of the fighting Gladiator,
some antiquarians cannot allow, that ever
it was intended to represent a person of
that profession, but a Victor at the Olympic
games; and allege, that Agasias of Ephesus,
the sculptor’s name, being inscribed
upon the pedestal, supports their opinion,
because the Greeks never used gladiators.
But I fear this argument has little weight;
for the Greek slaves at Rome put their
name to their work; and the free Greek
artists, working in Greece, in public works,
found difficulty in obtaining the same indulgence.
Those who wish to rescue this
statue from the ignoble condition of a common
Gladiator, say further, that he looks
up as if his adversary were on horseback,
adding, that gladiators never fought on
foot against horsemen on the Arena. Here
again, I am afraid, they are mistaken. He
looks no higher than the eye of an enemy
on foot; the head must have a much
greater degree of elevation to look up to
the eye of an horseman, which is the part
of your adversary which you always fix.
Some learned gentlemen, not satisfied
that this statue should be thrown indiscriminately
among Gladiators and Victors of
the Olympic games, have given it a particular
and lasting character; they roundly
assert, that it is the identical statue, made
by order of the Athenian State, in honour
of their countryman Chabrias; and that it
is precisely in the attitude which, according
to Cornelius Nepos, that hero assumed,
when he repulsed the army of Agesilaus.
This idea is in the true spirit of an antiquary.
If, upon turning to that author, you
remain unconvinced, and are interested
in the honour of the statue, I can furnish
you with no presumptive proof of its original
dignity, except, that the character of
the face is noble and haughty, unlike that
of a slave and mercenary Gladiator. And
there is no rope around the neck, as the
Gladiator Moriens has, whom that circumstance
sufficiently indicates to have been in
that unfortunate situation.