generally require the most patience and perseverance in their study and acquirement; and I feel assured, unless the silicate of soda or water-glass method be found superior to fresco, that English painters only require a longer experience, by continuity of practice, to make them willingly accept fresco as the best method of executing works of art for important public buildings.

Mem. Cornelius used to lay the greatest stress on the necessity of using lime that had been long kept, since this comes in immediate contact with the colours, and is a colour itself. When this eminent artist, in conjunction with others, painted the house of the Chevalier Bartholdy, in Rome, an old mason, who had been employed under Mengs (a not unskilful fresco-painter), directed their attention to this point, and it so happened that they were then supplied with lime which had been preserved twelve years. The works alluded to, though the first executed by the modern German frescopainters, have stood perfectly well. Other German and Italian fresco-painters do not consider it essential to keep the lime longer than ten or twelve months. Among other precautions, it is desirable to let the building itself dry well before painting upon the walls, and to use boiled water in moistening the surface and thinning the lime.

ENCAUSTIC PAINTING.

PAINTINGS executed with vehicles in which wax is combined in certain proportions, rank next to frescoes in architectonic propriety of effect and durability. With wax a vehicle may be composed nearly as free from gloss as fresco. Wax is very enduring, from the wonderful power it possesses to resist the action of acids; on this account it is used in the process of etching, and the Greeks saturated their marble sculptures with it to preserve them from atmospheric corrosion. But at present there is no general consent as to the true method of using wax as a vehicle, and it should be borne in mind that painting with any of its preparations is not properly encaustic unless heat is applied in the process; the application of heat, however, may ultimately be found an unnecessary operation by our advanced chemical science; if so, the title encaustic will have to be changed. I may, therefore, perhaps render the arts some service by bringing together the records of inquiries and experiments instituted at different times, to elucidate the ancient method of encaustic painting, and re

E

vive its practice. Whatever be the method ultimately adopted, it will probably be preferred by many in this country to fresco, as it promises a somewhat richer range of colour, a more powerful effect, and to be a less encumbered process.

Ancient authors often make mention of encaustic, which, if it had been described simply by this word, signifying "executed by fire," one might suppose to have been a species of enamelpainting. But the expressions, "encausto pingere," "pictura encaustica," "ceris pingere, "picturam inurere," used by Pliny and other ancient writers, make it clear that some other species of painting is meant. We have no ancient pictures of this description, and therefore the precise manner adopted by the ancients is not completely developed, though many moderns have closely investigated the subject and described their processes. At what time, and by whom, this species of painting was first invented is not determined by antiquaries, although it appears to have been practised in the fourth and fifth centuries. Count Caylus and M. Bachelier (a painter), were the first in modern times who made experiments in this branch of art about the year 1749. Some years after this, Count Caylus presented to the Academy of Painting at Paris his ideas and experiments on the subject of the ancient manner of painting in encaustic. In 1754 the Count had a head of Minerva painted by Mons. Vien after the process

described by himself, and presented it to the Academy of Sciences in 1755. This induced Mons. Bachelier to recommence his experiments, with better success; but his manner of painting in encaustic differed from the ancient as described by Pliny, he did not therefore discover the real ancient manner; after this he made other experiments with the same object, all of which differed from the process as described by Caylus and others.

Pliny, in a passage relating to encaustic painting, distinguishes three species. 1. That in which they used a stylus, and painted on ivory or polished wood (cestro in ebore), for which purpose they drew the outlines on the wood or ivory, previously saturated with some certain colour; the point of the stylus or stigma served for this operation, and its broad or blade end to clear off the small filaments that arose from the outlines made by the stylus in the wax preparation. 2. The next manner appears to have been where the wax, previously impregnated with colour, was spread over the surface of the picture with the spatula, the wax-colours being previously prepared and formed into small cylinders for use. By the side of the painter stood a brazier, which was used to heat the spatula with which the colours were smoothly spread after the outlines were completed, and thus the picture was proceeded with and finished. 3. The third method

was by painting with a brush dipped into wax liquefied by fire; by this method the colours attained considerable hardness, and could not be damaged either by the heat of the sun or the deleterious effects of sea-water. It was thus that

they painted their ships with emblems, which decorations were finally smoothed and polished. This kind of encaustic, therefore, was styled ship-painting."

66

The following important observations are translated from the Italian of the Chevalier Lorgna, who deeply investigated the subject in a small but valuable tract called "Un discorso sulla Cera Punica." The ancients (says this author), according to Pliny, used three species of painting, and in all three they used heat.

We have never thoroughly known the nature of the Punic wax, which was anciently used, and which, after all, was the essential ingredient of the ancient painting in encaustic. The Chevalier having praised the genius and industry of M. Requeno' and M. Bachelier, who also treated upon the subject, but who did not fully succeed in finding out the true way of making the said wax, quotes the passage in Pliny: "Punica fit hoc modo," &c., see Pliny's Nat. Hist. i. 21, c. 14; and asserts with many other writers, that Pliny's nitre is not the nitre of the moderns, properly so called, but

1Saggi sul Ristabilimento dell' antica Arte de Greci e Romani Pittori. Parma, 1787.