Part 26 (1/2)
To this I might say the beauty of woman is not the highest beauty: it is beauty of the nutritive more than of the higher thinking system. But there is another and a better answer: the difference of s.e.x which affects all the higher animals is a greater difference than that which subsists between some of their varieties or even of their species; and the same laws of ideal beauty are as inapplicable to different s.e.xes as to different species.
”We see, every day, around us,” says Alison, ”some forms of our species which affect us with sentiments of beauty. In our own s.e.x, we see the forms of the legislator, the man of rank, the general, the man of science, the private soldier, the sailor, the laborer, the beggar, &c. In the other s.e.x, we see the forms of the matron, the widow, the young woman, the nurse, the domestic servant, &c.... We expect different proportions of form from the painter, in his representation of a warrior and a shepherd, of a senator and of a peasant, of a wrestler and a boatman, of a savage and of a man of cultivated manners.... We expect, in the same manner, from the statuary, very different proportions in the forms of Jove and of Apollo [this should have been excepted], of Hercules and of Antinous, of a Grace and of Andromache, of a Baccha.n.a.l and of Minerva,” &c.
That, in all these cases, the beauty is partial, is evident from the circ.u.mstance that what is found in one is wanting in another; and partial beauty is not perfect beauty. But this last point has been well stated by Reynolds and Barry.
”To the principle I have laid down,” says Reynolds, ”that the idea of beauty in each species of being is an invariable one, it may be objected, that in every particular species there are various central forms which are separate and distinct from each other, and yet are undeniably beautiful; that in the human figure, for instance, the beauty of Hercules is one, of the Gladiator another, of the Apollo another [again the same error]; which makes so many different ideas of beauty.... It is true, indeed, that these figures are each perfect in their kind, though of different character and proportions; but still none of them is the representation of an individual, but of a cla.s.s. And as there is one general form, which, as I have said, belongs to the human kind at large, so in each of these cla.s.ses there is one common idea and central form, which is the abstract of the various individual forms belonging to that cla.s.s. Thus, though the forms of childhood and age differ exceedingly, there is a common form in childhood, and a common form in age, which is the more perfect, as it is more remote from all peculiarities. But I must add farther, that though the most perfect forms of each of the general divisions of the human figure are ideal, and superior to any individual form of that cla.s.s, yet the highest perfection of the human figure is not to be found in any one of them. It is not in the Hercules, nor in the Gladiator, nor in the Apollo, but in that form which is taken from all, and which partakes equally of the activity of the Gladiator, of the delicacy of the Apollo, and of the muscular strength of the Hercules. For perfect beauty in any species must combine all the characters which are beautiful in that species. It cannot consist in any one to the exclusion of the rest: no one, therefore, must be predominant, that no one may be deficient.”
”A high degree of particular character,” says Barry, ”cannot be superinduced upon pure or simple beauty without altering its const.i.tuent parts; this is peculiar to grace only; for particular characters consist, as has been observed before, in those deviations from the general standard for the better purpose of effecting utility and power, and become so many species of a higher order; where nature is elevated into grandeur, majesty, and sublimity.”
There is AN IDEAL IN ATt.i.tUDE as well as in the form of the head and body.
This ideal is exactly opposed to the academical rule mentioned by Dufresnoy, Reynolds, and others, namely, that the right leg and left arm, or the left leg and right arm, should be advanced or withdrawn together.
These are the mere att.i.tudes of progression, not those of expression; and the academical rule is only an academical blunder. To anything but walking--to the free and unembarra.s.sed expressions of the body, it is, indeed, quite inapplicable, and could produce only contortion.
The rule of ideal att.i.tude, which I long ago deduced, both from physiological principles, and from the practice of the Greek artists, is that all the parts of one side of the body should be advanced or withdrawn together; that when one side is advanced, the other should be withdrawn; and that when the right arm is elevated, extended, or bent forward, the left leg should be elevated, extended, or bent backward--in all respects the reverse of the academical rule, so complacently mentioned by Dufresnoy, Reynolds, &c.
The foundation of this rule in the necessary balance of the body, and that distribution of motion which equally animates every part, must be obvious to every one. It is ill.u.s.trated by the finest statues of the Greeks, wherever the expression intended was free and unembarra.s.sed, and even in those, as the Laoc.o.o.n and his sons, where, though the action was constrained and convulsive, the sculptor was yet at liberty to employ the most beautiful att.i.tude. It is abandoned in these great works, when either action embarra.s.sed by purpose, or clownishness, as in the Dancing Faun, are expressed.[48]
I have now only to add, with Moreau, that individual beauty, the most perfect, differs always greatly from the ideal, and that which is least removed from it, is very difficult to be found. Hence, in all languages, the epithet _rare_ is attached to beauty; and the Italians even call it _pellegrina_, foreign, to indicate that they have not frequently an opportunity of seeing it: they speak of ”_bellezze pellegrine_,”--”_leggiadria singolare e pellegrina_.”
CHAPTER XIX.
THE IDEAL OF FEMALE BEAUTY.
”Hominum divmque voluptas, alma Venus.”
Of this, the most perfect models have been created by Grecian art. Few, we are told, were the living beauties, from whom such ideal model could be framed. The difficulty of finding these among the women of Greece, must have been considerable, when Praxiteles and Apelles were obliged to have recourse, in a greater or less degree, to the same person, for the beauties of the Venus of Cnidos, executed in white marble, and the Venus of Cos, painted in colors. It is a.s.serted by Athenaeeus, that both these productions were, in some measure, taken from Phryne of Thespia, in Boeotia, then a courtesan at Athens.
Both productions are said to have represented Phryne coming out of the sea, on the beach of Sciron, in the Saronic gulf, between Athens and Eleusis, where she was wont to bathe.
It is said, that there, at the feast of Neptune, Phryne, in the presence of the people of Eleusis, having cast aside her dress, and allowing her long hair to fall over her shoulders, plunged into the sea, and sported long amid its waves. An immense number of spectators covered the sh.o.r.e; and when she came out of it, all exclaimed, ”It is Venus who rises from the waters!” The people would actually have taken her for the G.o.ddess, if she had not been well known to them.
Apelles and Praxiteles, we are told, were both upon the sh.o.r.e; and both resolved to represent the birth of Venus according to the beautiful model which they had just beheld.
Such is said to have been the origin of two of the greatest works of antiquity. The work of Apelles, known under the name of Venus Anadyomene, was placed by Cesar in the temple of Venus Genitrix, after the conquest of Greece. An idea of the sculpture of Praxiteles is supposed to have been imperfectly preserved to modern times in the Venus de Medici.
We are farther told, that, after having studied several att.i.tudes, Phryne fancied to have discovered one more favorable than the rest for displaying all her perfections; and that both painter and sculptor were obliged to adopt her favorite posture. From this cause, the Venus of Cnidos, and the Venus of Cos, were so perfectly alike, that it was impossible to remark any difference in their features, contour, or more particularly in their att.i.tude.
The painting of Apelles, it is added, was far from exciting so much enthusiasm among the Greeks, as the sculpture of Praxiteles. They fancied that the marble moved; that it seemed to speak; and their illusion, says Lucian, was so great, that they ended by applying their lips to those of the G.o.ddess.[49]
”Praxiteles,” says Flaxman, ”excelled in the highest graces of youth and beauty. He is said to have excelled not only other sculptors, but himself, by his marble statues in the Ceramicus of Athens; but his Venus was preferable to all others in the world, and many sailed to Cnidos for the purpose of seeing it. This sculptor having made two statues of Venus, one with drapery, the other without, the Coans preferred the clothed figure, on account of its severe modesty, the same price being set upon each. The citizens of Cnidos took the rejected statue, and afterward refused it to King Nicomedes, who would have forgiven them an immense debt in return; but they were resolved to suffer anything so long as this statue by Praxiteles enn.o.bled Cnidos.... This figure is known by the descriptions of Lucian and Cedrenus, and it is represented on a medal of Caracalla and Plautilla, in the imperial cabinet of France. This Venus was still in Cnidos during the reign of the emperor Alcadius, about four hundred years after Christ. This statue seems to offer the first idea of the Venus de Medici, which is likely to be the repet.i.tion of another Venus, the work of this artist.” He elsewhere says of the Venus of Praxiteles, it was ”the most admired female statue of all antiquity, whose beauty is as perfect as it is elevated, and as innocent as perfect; from which the Medicean Venus seems but a deteriorated variety.”
Flaxman states that he himself had seen, in the stables of the Braschi palace, a statue which he supposed might be the original work of Praxiteles. Strange to tell, nothing is now known of its fate! A supposed cast from this, or from a copy of it, conforming to the figure on the model of Caracalla, is to be seen at the Royal Academy.
Of the VENUS DE MEDICI, Flaxman says, it ”was so much a favorite of the Greeks and Romans, that a hundred ancient repet.i.tions of this statue have been noticed by travellers. The individual figure is said to have been found in the forum of Octavia. The style of sculpture seems to have been later than Alexander the Great.
Let us now briefly examine this Model of Female Beauty.