NOTES, &c. Note I. Antiochus. (Antholog. lib. ii. cap. 4.) Harduin, in his Commentary on Pliny, (lib. xxxv. sect. 36,) attributes this epigram to a poet of the name of Piso. Among all the Greek epigrammatists, however, there is not one of that name. Note 2. On this account Aristotle desires that no young people should be permitted to see the works of that painter, in order, as far as possible, to preserve their imaginations from all ideas of deformity. (Polit. lib. viii. cap. 5.) Instead of Pauson, M. Boden would have us read Pausanias in this passage, because the latter is known to have painted immodest pictures, (de Umbra Poetica, comment, i.) Had he taken the trouble to consult the passage in the Art of Poetry, (cap. ii.) he would have altered his opinion. Some commentators (for example, Kühn on Ælian, Var. Hist, lib. iv. cap. 3.) explain the distinction which Aristotle there draws between Polygnotus, Dionysius and Pauson, by supposing that Polygnotus painted gods and heroes; Dionysius men; and Pauson beasts. The fact is, they all painted human figures; and because Pauson once painted a horse, we have no right to set him down, as Boden does, for an animal painter. The order in which they are named bespeaks the degree of beauty which they imparted to their human figures; and the reason why Dionysius is said to have painted only men, and received the distinguishing cognomen of Anthropographus, was simply that he copied nature too slavishly, and was unable to attain that ideal standard, beneath which to represent gods and heroes was an offence against religion. Note 3. It is a mistake to suppose that the serpent is a symbol only of a god of medicine. Justinus Martyr expressly says (Apolog. ii. p. 55. Edit. Sylburg.) zaga *AYTI TWY νομιζομένων παρ' ὑμῖν θεων, όφις συμβολον μεγα και μυστηριον αναγράφεται ; and there would be no difficulty in referring to numerous monuments in which a serpent is the accompaniment of divinities, who have not the smallest relation to the art of medicine. NOTE 4. Among all the works of art mentioned by Pliny, Pausanias, and others, and among all the ancient statues, bas-reliefs, and paintings still in existence, there is not a single instance of the personification of a Fury. I must make an exception in favor of medals, whose images, however, belong less truly to art than to hieroglyphic language. Spence would therefore have done better to have borrowed his furies, if such he must have, from medals, (Seguini Numism. p. 178. Spanhem. de Præst. Numism., dissert. xiii. p. 639,) instead of exercising his ingenuity to discover them in a work where they certainly never existed. The following are his words (Polymet. dial. xvi. p. 272) 66 Though furies are very uncommon in the works of ancient artists, yet there is one subject in which they are generally introduced by them. What I mean is the death of Meleager, in the relievos of which they are often represented as encouraging, or urging Althæa to burn the fatal brand, on which the life of her son depended. Even a woman's resentment, you see, could not go so far without a little help of the devil. In a copy of one of these relievos, published in the Admiranda, there are two women standing by the altar with Althæa, who are probably meant for furies in the original (for who but furies would assist at such a sacrifice?); though the copy scarce represents them horrid enough for that character; but what is most to be observed in that piece is a round, or medallion, about the midst of it, with the evident head of a Fury upon it. This might be what Althæa addressed her prayers to whenever she wished ill to her neighbors; or whenever she was going to do any very evil action. Ovid intro |