Untitled - 24grammata.com

ANCIENT GREECE.[CHA*. xv.of art are mentioned. What shall we infer from this, butthat no considerable productions of the fine arts were possessed by private persons in Sicily ?So deeply therefore was the idea fixed among the Greeksthat the works of the artists were public, that it could notbe eradicated even by the profanations of the Romans. Andthis is the chief cause of their flourishing. They thus fulfilledtheir destiny ;belonging, not to individuals, but to cultivatedhumanity. They should constitute a common property.Even in our times, when individuals are permitted to possessthem, censure is incurred if others are not allowed to enjoythem. But even where this privilege is conceded, it is nota matter of indifference, whether an individual or the nationis the possessor.The respect shown to the arts by the nation in possessing their productions, confers a higher valueon their labours. How much more honoured does the artistfeel, how much more freely does he breathe, when he knowsthat he is exerting himself for a nation, which will esteemits glory increased by his works, instead of toiling for themoney and the caprices of individuals !Such was the condition of the arts in Greece. Whenemulation arose among the cities to be distinguished by possessing works of art, a field was opened for a Phidias andPolygnotus, for a Praxiteles and Parrhasius. They werebetter rewarded by glory than by money some;of them1never worked for pay. Need we then add any further remarks to explain why the fine arts declined with liberty?Philip and Alexander still saw a Lysippus and an Apelles ;but with them ends the series of creative minds, such as noother nation has ever produced.But the taste of the nation for the arts and their producfamilywas not of Grecian origin. But what does one such exception, and insuch an age, prove respecting an earlier period ?1Polygnotus painted the Poecile for nothing j Zeuxis, in the last part of hisojj ^T d *receiv ?no pay f s F P es hi.ictm' > but gave them away. Pirn. xxxv.36. Thus a partial answer is givento the question, how the cities could support the great expense for works of art. Besides, in Greece as in Italy, theri 25 v S 168* masters ^d not become dear till after their death. The.little which we know of their personal condition and circumstances, representsthem for the most part as men of fine feelings and good fellowship, who,the likedivine Raphael and Correggio, in the moments sacred to mental exertion,rmsed themselves above human nature, but otherwise enjoyed life withouttroubling themselves much about money. Phidias for all his masterpiecesdid not receive a third part as much as Gorgias for Ms declamations.