which had spanned it, lose its whole beauty, when the poet is said to be alluding by it to a work of art, in which this river god is represented in the act of breaking a bridge in pieces ? What profit can we derive from such illustrations as these, that deprive the poet of any share of honour in the clearest passages, in order to admit but the glimmer of some artist's idea?

I regret that so useful a book, as the Polymetis might have been, should, through this tasteless caprice for attributing to the ancient poets, in place of their own genius, familiarity with some other man's, have become repulsive, and far more prejudicial to the classic authors, than the watery commentaries of insipid etymologists could ever have been. Still more do I regret that in this Spence should have been preceded by Addison, who, in the desire of elevating an acquaintance with works of art to a means of interpreting the classics, has been as little successful as his successor, in distinguishing where the imitation of an artist is becoming, where derogatory, to a poet.*

* Æneid. Lib. viii. 728.-Polymetis, Dial. xiv. page 230. In various passages of his travels; and in his conversations on ancient coins.

CHAPTER VIII.

Or the similarity which exists between poetry and painting, Spence forms the most curious conceptions possible. He believes that the two arts. were, among the ancients, so closely united that they constantly went hand in hand, the poet never suffering himself to lose sight of the painter, nor the painter of the poet. That poetry is the more comprehensive art, that beauties wait on its bidding, which painting would in vain attempt to attain ; that it often has good reasons for preferring inartistic beauties to artistic; of all this he seems never once to have thought; and, therefore, the most trifling differences, that he may observe between the ancient poets and artists, involve him in an embarassment, by which he is driven to the use of the most surprising subterfuges.

a

The ancient poets, for the most part, attributed horns to Bacchus. "Therefore it is surprising," says Spence, "that these horns are not more commonly seen upon his statues.' He advances first one reason, then another, now the ignorance of antiquarians, now the smallness of the horns themselves, which, he thinks, might have been hidden under the

Polymetis, Dial. ix. page 129.

grape clusters and ivy leaves, which were the constant head-dress of the god. He hovers around the true cause, without for a moment suspecting it. The horns of Bacchus were not natural horns, as were those of Fauns and Satyrs. They were an ornament of the brow, which he could put on, or lay aside, at his pleasure.

Tibi cum sine cornibus adstas

Virgineum caput est,

so that

is Ovid's festive invocation of Bacchus; he could shew himself without horns, and did so, whenever he wished to appear in his maiden beauty, in which the artist would naturally represent him, and would therefore be compelled to avoid every addition, which might produce a bad effect. Such an addition would these horns have been, which were fastened on the chaplet in the manner they are seen to be on a head in the Royal Cabinet of Berlin.© Such an addition was the chaplet itself, which concealed his beautiful forehead, and therefore occurs in the statues of Bacchus, as rarely as the horns themselves; while the poets are, as continually, attributing it to him as its inventor. The horns and the chaplet furnished the poet with his allusions to the actions and character of the god. To the artist, on the contrary, they were impediments, preventing

c

b Metamorph. Lib. iv. 19.

Begeri Thes. Brandenb. Vol. iii. page 242.

the display of higher beauties; and if Bacchus, as I believe, obtained the name of "Biformis, Aíμoppos," for this very reason, viz. that he could manifest himself in beauty as well as in terror, it is perfectly natural, that the artists, from his two forms, should have selected that, which best corresponded with the purpose of their art.

In Roman poetry, Minerva and Juno often hurl the thunderbolt. Why, asks Spence, do they not do it in their statues also ?d He answers, "this power

66

ઃઃ

was the privilege of these two goddesses, the reason of which was, perhaps, first learnt in the Samothracian mysteries. But since, among the "ancient Romans, the artists would be considered as "of inferior rank, and would therefore be rarely "imitated in them, they would doubtless know "nothing of it, and what they knew not of, they clearly "could not represent.' There are several questions which I might ask Spence in turn. Did these common persons work on their own account; or at the bidding of some patron of higher rank, who might possibly be instructed in these mysteries? Did artists occupy such an inferior position in Greece also? Were not the Roman artists for the most part born Greeks? and so forth.

Statius and Valerius Flaccus describe an irritated Venus, and that too in such terrible traits, that at this moment she might be taken for a fury rather

than the goddess of love. Spence looks around among the ancient works of art for such a statue, but in vain. What is the conclusion he draws? Is it that the poet has greater liberty allowed him than the sculptor and painter? This is the conclusion he should have drawn, but he had, once for all, adopted, as fundamental, the principle that, "scarce anything can be good in a poetical description, which would appear absurd, if represented in a statue or picture.' Consequently, the poets must have committed an "Statius and Valerius belong to an age "Roman poetry was already in its decline. In this

cr

error.

ઃઃ

when

very passage they display their bad judgment and 'corrupted taste. Among the poets of a better age, "such a repudiation of the laws of artistic expression "will never be found."f

To pronounce such criticisms, as these, needs but small powers of discernment. I will not, however, in this instance, take up the defence either of Statius or Valerius, but confine myself for the present to a general observation. The gods and spiritual beings, as they are represented by the artists, are not precisely such as to fulfil the requisitions of the poet. With the artist they are personified abstractions, which, in order to be at once recognised, must perpetually retain their appropriate characteristics. With the poet, on the contrary, they are real, acting