Note [133] page 66. The comparative merits of painting and sculpture were a frequent subject of discussion during this period. The Renaissance writers had inherited from antiquity a fondness for seeking superiority or inferiority in matters between which there exists such a diversity of character as to render comparison unprofitable. According to Vasari, Giorgione maintained “that in one picture the painter could display various aspects without the necessity of walking round his work, and could even display, at one glance, all the different aspects that could be presented by the figure of a man, even though the latter should assume several attitudes,—a thing which could not be accomplished by sculpture without compelling the observer to change his place, so that the work is not presented at one view, but at different views. He declared, further, that he could execute a single figure in painting, in such a manner as to show the front, back, and profiles of both sides at one and the same time.... He painted a nude figure, with its back turned to the spectator, and at the feet of the figure was a limpid stream, wherein the reflection of the front was painted with the utmost exactitude: on one side was a highly burnished corselet, of which the figure had divested itself, and wherein the left side was reflected perfectly, every part of the figure being clearly apparent: and on the other side was a mirror, in which the right profile of the nude form was also exhibited. By this beautiful and admirable fancy, Giorgione desired to prove that painting is, in effect, the superior art, requiring more talent and demanding higher effort.”

In one of his letters, Michelangelo wrote: “My opinion is that all painting is the better the nearer it approaches to relief, and relief is worse in proportion as it inclines to painting. And so I have been wont to think that sculpture is the lamp of painting, and that the difference between them might be likened to the difference between the sun and moon.... By sculpture I understand an art which operates by taking away superfluous material; by painting, one that attains its result by laying material on. It is enough that both emanate from the same human intelligence, and consequently sculpture and painting ought to live in amity together, without these lengthy disputations. More time is wasted in talking about the problem than would go to the making of figures in both species.”

Note [134] page 68. In his “Treatise on Painting,” Leonardo da Vinci says: “The first marvel we find in painting is the apparent detachment from the wall or other plane, and the cheating of keen perceptions by something that is not separate from the surface.”

Note [135] page 68. “Grottoes,” i.e. the Catacombs. Speaking in his autobiography of the remains of ancient art found in the Catacombs, Benvenuto Cellini says: “These grotesques have received this name from the moderns because they were found by scholars at Rome in certain subterranean caverns, which had anciently been rooms, chambers, studios, halls and the like. Since these scholars found them in these cavernous places (which had been built by the ancients on the surface and had become low), and since such low places are known at Rome by the name Grottoes, for that reason they received the name grotesques.” Cellini here tries to explain the origin of the name applied to ornaments (such as the arabesques of the Renaissance) in which figures, human to the waist, terminate in scrolls, leafage, etc., and are combined with animal forms and impossible flowers. In this sense the word was used as early as 1502 in a contract between the Cardinal of Siena and the painter Pinturicchio. It had of course not yet reached its modern signification, so fully discussed in the appendix to Volume IV of Ruskin’s “Modern Painters.” In Castiglione’s time it was not known that the catacomb decorations were Christian, and in any case they were founded on pagan models.

Note [136] page 69. Demetrius I of Macedon, (died 283 B.C.), was the son of Antigonus, who was one of Alexander’s most illustrious generals and succeeded to the Macedonian throne.

Note [137] page 69. Of Metrodorus, nothing more is known than Pliny’s account of the incident recorded in our text.

Note [138] page 69. Lucius Æmilius Paulus, (died 160 B.C.), was a Roman general, Consul, and statesman of the aristocratic party. The incident mentioned in the text occurred after his victory over King Perseus of Macedon in 168 B.C.

Note [139] page 70. Campaspe, according to Pliny, was the name of the beautiful slave given by Alexander to Apelles, as narrated at page 68.

Note [140] page 70. Zeuxis, (flor. 400 B.C.), belonged to the Ionian school of Greek painting, which was characterized by sensuous beauty and accurate imitation of nature. He lived at Athens, and his idealism is said to have been rather of form than of character. The picture referred to in the text represented Helen of Troy, was regarded as his masterpiece, and was probably identical with a picture mentioned as being at Rome. The story of the five maidens is said to have been cited by Tintoretto in support of his maxim, “Art must perfect Nature.”

Note [141] page 71. The Marquesses Febus and Gerardino di Ceva were sons of the Marquess Giovanni (who was living as late as 1491), and belonged to one of the most illustrious families of Piedmont and indeed of all Italy. They were born towards the close of the 15th century and died about the third decade of the 16th, having obtained the investiture of their fief in 1521. They sided sometimes with the Emperor and sometimes with France, as best suited them, and left rather a bad name. To escape punishment for killing a cousin, Gerardino stabbed himself, and Febus also died “disperato,” leaving two daughters in grief and shame.