i cannot conclude what i have to say about art and artists without some reference to painting, an art which was formerly illustrious, when it was held in esteem both by kings and peoples, and ennobled those whom it deigned to transmit to posterity. but at the present day, it is completely banished in favor of marble, and gold. for not only are whole walls now covered with marble, but the marble itself is carved out or marqueted so as to represent objects and animals of various kinds. no longer now are we satisfied with formal compartitions of marble, or with slabs extended like so many mountains in our chambers, but we must begin to paint the very stone itself! this art was invented in the reign of claudius, but it was in the time of nero that we discovered the method of inserting in marble spots that do not belong to it, and so varying its uniformity; representing the marble of numidia variegated with ovals, and that of synnada veined with purple; just as luxury might have willed that nature should produce them. such are our resources when the quarries fail us, and luxury ceases not to busy itself, in order that as much as possible may be lost whenever a conflagration happens.

correct portraits of individuals were formerly transmitted to later ages by painting; but instead brazen shields are now set up, and silver faces, with only some obscure traces of the countenance: the very heads, too, of statues are changed, a thing that has given rise before now to many a current sarcastic line; so true it is that people prefer showing off the valuable material, to having a faithful likeness. yet, at the same time, we tapestry the walls of our galleries with old pictures, and we prize the portraits of strangers; while as to 290 those made in honor of ourselves, we esteem them only for the value of the material, for some heir to break up and melt, and so forestall the noose and slip-knot of the thief.

far different was it in the days of our ancestors. then there were to be seen in their halls not statues made by foreign artists, or works in bronze or marble, but family portraits modelled in wax, each in its separate niche, always in readiness to accompany the funeral processions of the family; occasions on which every member of the family was always present. and the pedigree of the individual was traced in lines upon each of these colored portraits. their libraries, too, were filled with archives and memoirs, stating what each had done when holding the magistracy. on the outside, again, of their houses, and around the thresholds of their doors, were placed other statues of those mighty spirits, in the spoils of the enemy there affixed, memorials which a purchaser even was not allowed to displace; so that the very house continued to triumph even after it had changed its master. a powerful stimulus to emulation this, when the walls each day reproached an unwarlike owner for having thus intruded upon the triumphs of another! there is still extant an address by the orator messala, full of indignation, in which he forbids that there should be inserted among the images of his family any of those of the stranger race of the l?vini. it was the same feeling, too, that extorted from old messala those compilations of his “on the families of rome;” when, upon passing through the hall of scipio pomponianus, he observed that, in consequence of a testamentary adoption, the salvittos—for that had been their surname—to the disgrace of the africani, had surreptitiously contrived to assume the name of the scipios. but the messalas must pardon me if i remark, that to lay a claim, though an untruthful one, to the statues of illustrious men, shows some love for their virtues, and is much more honorable than to have such a character that no one should wish to claim them.

291

there is a new invention, too, which we must not omit to notice. not only do we consecrate in our libraries, in gold or silver, or at all events, in bronze, those whose immortal spirits hold converse with us in those places, but we even go so far as to reproduce the ideal of features all remembrance of which has ceased to exist; and our regrets give existence to likenesses that have not been transmitted to us, as in the case of homer. nothing can be a greater proof of having achieved success in life, than a lasting desire on the part of one’s fellow-men, to know what one’s features were. this practice of grouping portraits was first introduced at rome by asinius pollio, who was also the first to establish a public library, and so make the works of genius the property of the public. whether the kings of alexandria and of pergamus, who had so energetically rivalled each other in forming libraries, had previously introduced this practice, i cannot so easily say.

that a strong passion for portraits formerly existed, is attested both by atticus, the friend of cicero, who wrote a work on this subject, and by varro, who conceived the very liberal idea of inserting, by some means or other, in his numerous volumes, the portraits of seven hundred individuals; as he could not bear the idea that all traces of their features should be lost, or that the lapse of centuries should get the better of mankind. thus was he the inventor of a benefit to his fellow-men, that might have been envied by the gods themselves; for not only did he confer upon them immortality, but he transmitted them to all parts of the earth; so that it might be possible for them to be present, everywhere and each occupy his niche. this service varro conferred upon persons who were not members of his own family.