i .— Ge n e r a l r em a r k s on iconog r a ph y.
“ I g o n o g r a ph ia statuas omnis generis, protomas, picturas, mnsivaqne
opera describit. Hanc sexcenti celebres opifices olim coluerunt. Imaginum
amore, inquit Plinius, flagrasse quosdam testes sunt et Atticus ille Ciceronis, edilo
de his volumine, et Marcus Varro benignissimo invento insertis voluminum suorum
fcecuriditati, non nominibus tantum septingentorum illustrium, sed et aliquo modo
imaginibus, non passus intercidere figuras, aut vetustatem eevi contra homines
v a l e r e (Fabrigiub,Hibliographia A n t i q 1716, p. 124.)
■Whenever the metaphysical Germans speculate about the philosophy
of history, they invariably draw a broad distinction between
the progressive races (Culturvolker) — to whom mankind is indebted
for civilization, for the advancement of sciences, for all the forms of
political administration of society, and.for the moral elevation of
the soul,—and the passive races, who scarcely possess any history of
their own. All the white and yellow, and a few brown and red
nations, are put down among the former; the majority of the
Browns, the hunter-tribes of the Reds, and all the Blacks, being
classed among the latter. But again, among the progressive races
there is a very remarkable difference as regards their part in history.
The Egyptians and Assyrians, the Shemitic races of Phoenicia,
Palestine and Arabia, the Persians, Greeks, Etruscans and Romans,
and lastly the Teutonic and neo-Latin nations, whether pure or
blended with one another and with Celtic elements, took in succession
the lead of mankind; whilst the pure Celts, the Selavonians,
the Finnic, Turkoman, Tartar and Berber races, remained in the
background. We need not say that, going one step farther, we find
the mixed populations of Great Britain and of North America
(commonly hut wrongly called the Anglo-Saxon race), and the equally
mixed population of France, to claim to be at the head of the
modern progressive races; scarcely to admit the equality of the German
proper; and to he fully convinced of their own superiority over
Italians and Spaniards, Dutch, and .Scandinavians, Celts and Scla-
vonians, Hungarians and Finns, rejecting altogether the pretensions
of Turks, Arabs, Persians and Hindoos, to civilization. This scale
of national inequality has evidently been construed with regard to
the political power, the commercial spirit, the literary activity, and
the application of the. results of science to manufactural industry
among the different races. Considered from the point of view of
imitative Art,—of painting and sculpture,—the result will be somewhat
different: and whilst it is certain that art has never flourished
hut among the progressive races, we shall find that nations to whom
we are indebted for some of the most important discoveries, and to
the' highest truths revealed to mankind, are altogether deficient in
art, — as, for instance, the Shemites without exception; that others,
although wielding the most extensive political power,-such as the
Romans of old, the Scandinavian Northmen, the Anglo-Saxons, the
Sclavonic races, never attained a high devolopment of painting and
sculpture, and were surpassed by the Greeks of yore, and by the
Italians and Spaniards, the Germans and Dutch. History teaches
us that eminence in painting and sculpture is not the result of either
high mental culture or political power, and that it does not always
accompany the refinement and wealth of nations. We find it growing
out of a peculiar disposition of some nations, predestined as it were for
art; whilst other races, living under the same social, climatic, and
political conditions, never rise artistically to represent the outward
. world in colors or in plastic forms. And again, among the artistical
nations we meet with the most remarkable differences in treating
the same subjects. Some strive for the most scrupulous reproduction
of nature, and cling,to faithful imitation; others are creative,
embellishing whatever they touch: some show a deep understanding
and love of nature; others concentrate their power exclusively on
the representation of the human body: some excel by the brilliancy
and harmony of their coloring; others charm by their correctness in
plastical forms: hut all of them express their nationality, their peculiar
relation to God, nature and mankind, throughout their works.
Therefore, even an inexperienced eye catches the difference between
Egyptian and Assyrian, Indian and Chinese, Greek and Etruscan,
Italian and German, French and Spanish, art: and the artistically-
educated student feels no difficulty in discriminating the minute
istinctions of schools, in each national art; and generally discovers
any attempt at forging pictures and statues. The inherent and
indelible nationality of every monument of art is, in fact, the only
safeguard against imposition; since it is just as impossible for
Gibson or Powers to sculpture an antique statue, and for Sir Charles
tlake or Mr. Ingres to paint a Raphael (or even a Carlo Dolce, or
any second-rate Italian picture), as it would have been impossible for
i / i to write a play of Shakespeare, and for any New Englander to
ecome the author of a tragedy which could pass for the work of
rnei e. Still, to establish the fact that art is always national and
frn C®srQ0P0^^an; we must pass in review the great artistic races
rJ ,n ^hetlme of the Egyptian-pyramids down to our own days —a
period of some five thousand years.