but to make this diftin&tion fill clearer, if, inftead of pronouncing the word fame flightly, he does but give it a ftrong emphatic force, and let it drawl off the tongue for fome time before the found finishes, he will find it flide upwards and end in a rifing tone; if he makes the fame experiment on the word blame, he will find the found flide downwards, and end in a falling tone; and this drawling pronunciation, though it lengthens the founds beyond their proper duration, does not alter them effentially; the fame inflexions are preferved as in the common pronunciation; and the diftinction is as real in one mode of pronouncing as in the other, though not fo perceptible.

Every paufe, of whatever kind, muft neceffarily adopt one of thefe two inflexions, or continue in a monotone; thus when we afk a queftion without the interrogative words, we naturally adopt the rifing inflexion on the last word; as,

Can Cæfar deferve blame? Impoffible!

Here blame, the laft word of the question, has the rifing inflexion, and impoffible, with the note of admiration, the falling: the comma, or that fufpenfion of voice generally annexed to it, which marks a continuation of the fenfe, is most frequently accompanied by the rifing inflexion, as in the following fentence:

If Cæfar deferves blame, he ought to have no fame.

Here we find the word blame, marked with the comma, has exactly the fame inflexion of voice as the fame word in the interrogative fentence immediately preceding; the only difference is, that the rifing inflexion flides higher at the interrogation than at the comma; efpecially if it is pronounced with emphafis.

The three other points, namely, the femicolon, colon, and period, adopt either the rifing or falling inflexion as the fenfe or harmony requires, though in different degrees of elevation and depreffion. But thefe different degrees of rifing or falling on the flide which ends the word, are by no means fo effential as the kind of flide we adopt. Thus in the following:

As we cannot difcern the fhadow moving along the dial-plate, fo the advances we make in knowledge are only perceived by the diftance gone over.

As we perceive the fhadow to have moved, but did not perceive it moving; fo our advances in learning, confifting of infenfible. steps, are only perceivable by the distance.

As we perceive the fhadow to have moved along the dial, but did not perceive it moving; and it appears that the grafs has grown, though nobody ever faw it grow: fo the advances we make in knowledge, as they confit of such minute fteps, are only perceivable by the distance.

Here, I fay, the words dial-plate, moving, and grow, marked with the comma, femicolon, and colon, mult neceffarily end with the upward flide; and provided this flide is adopted, it is not of any very great confequence to the fenfe whether the flide is raifed much or little; but if the downward flide is given to any of these words, though in the fmallest degree, the fenfe will be materially affected.

• The

The fame points, when the fentence is differently conftructed, adopt the other inflexion.

1

Thus the inflexion of voice which is adopted in a series of emphatic particulars, for the fake of force and precifion, though thefe particulars are marked by commas only, is the falling inflexion: we have an example of this in the true pronunciation of the following fentence:

I tell you though you, though all the world, though an angel from heaven were to affirm the truth of it, I could not believe it.

That this is the proper inflexion on each of these particulars will more evidently appear by repeating them with the oppofite inflexion of voice, or that fufpenfion ufually given to the comma.

I tell you though you, though all the world, though an angel from heaven were to affirm the truth of it I could not believe it.

In pronouncing this fentence, therefore, in order to give force and precision to every portion, the falling inflexion ought to be adopted on you, world, and heaven; and for the fake of conveying what is meant by this inflexion, we may call each of these words emphatical, and print them in Italics, not that all emphafis neceffarily adopts the falling inflexion, but becaufe this inflexion is generally annexed to emphasis for want of a juft idea of the diftinction of inflexion here laid down.

I tell you, though you, though all the world, though an angel from heaven, were to affirm the truth of it, I could not believe it.

The falling inflexion annexed to members of fentences generally marked with the femicolon and colon, may be feen in the following example:

Perfons of good tafte expect to be pleafed, at the fame time they are informed; and think that the best fenfe always deferves the belt language: but fill the chief regard is to be had to perfpicuity.

In this example, the word informed is marked with the femicolon, and the word language with the colon, and from the fenfe and ftructure of the fentence both require the falling inflexion, contrary to that annexed to the fame points in the preceding fentences. The period in each fentence has the falling inflexion, and in the last fentence is pronounced in a lower tone of voice than the fame inflexion on the colon and femicolon.'

Farther to explain this doctrine of Inflexions, the Author makes ufe of engraved lines, rifing and falling with the rising and falling inflexions of the words annexed to them; but, we apprehend, with little advantage to the learner. The preceding explanation will be fufficiently clear to thofe whofe ears are capable of an accurate diftinction of founds; to others, no vifible helps will be fufficient to answer the purpose.

The Author's application of this ingenious theory in particular rules of inflexion, with fome of the principal of his obfervations on the remaining branches of Elocution, fhall be laid before our Readers in a future Article.

[To be concluded in our next.]

E.

ART.

4

ART. II. A critical Effay on Oil-Painting; proving that the Art of Painting in Ol was known before the pretended Difcovery of John and Hubert Van Eyck; to which are added, THEOPHILUS de Arte Pingendi, ERACLIUS de Artibus Romanorum, and a Review of Farinator's Lumen Anima. By R. E. Rafpe. 4to. 7 s. 6d. fewed. Cadell. 1781.

I

Tis always with pleafure that we perufe any performance which tends to throw a light on the hiftory of the arts, or to correct the public opinion, when it has been mifled by fallacious ftories, and groundless reports: on both these accounts the prefent work merits our attention.

That John Van Eyck of Bruges was the inventor of oil-painting, has been fo long received as an uncontroverted truth, that a man who attempts to difprove it must appear, at first fight, to the generality of readers, to engage in an undertaking, in which they will hardly expect him to fucceed. This, neverthelefs, is done entirely to our fatisfaction, in the Effay before us. To enable our Readers to judge of this work, we fhall, as briefly as may be, ftate the Author's arguments, in the following manner:

Vafari, a Florentine, publifhed the firft edition of his lives of the painters in the year 1566. In this work he speaks of the invention of oil-painting in two different places, in each of which he gives the honour of it to John Van Eyck. Before Vafari's time (our Author obferves), no Flemish or Dutch Hiftorian has afcribed this invention to their countryman, although 150 years had elapfed, between the time of the pretended difcovery, and the appearance of Vafari's book. But fince that period, every chronicle, or other Flemish or Dutch hiftorical compilation, is obferved to mention Van Eyck's invention, and very often to puff and found it with the most extravagant praifes.

Aubertus Miraus feems to have been the firft, who looked upon the accounts of John Van Eyck's invention as very exceptionable. He mentions fome Flemish oil-paintings, done before his period. Malvafiat defcribed fome of the fame kind which are preferved at Bologna in Italy; and Mr. Horace Walpole has lately favoured the Public with fome unquestionable facts, which prove to the unbiaffed, that oil painting was known and practifed in this kingdom long before the times in which John Van Eyck is reported and fuppofed to have invented it in Flanders.'

Mr. Leffing, firft librarian to the Duke of Brunswick at Wolfenbuttel, has lately published an excellent German pamphlet on this

In Chron. Belgico ad ann. 1410.

In Pelfina Pittrice, Tom. I. p. 27.

Anecdotes of Painting in England. Strawberry Hill. 1762. Vol. I. p. 6-23.

fubje&t §,

fubject, and it is partly with his arguments that I shall endeavour to treat of it in a fatisfactory manner. He fays, "That scarce any thing can be answered to theie quellions, that the newest and best "authors on the art of painting have referred him from one to ano"ther, and lastly to Vafari, as the only evidence in behalf of Van "Eyck.".

All then depends on Vafari's word and evidence. Let us fee therefore, who Vajari was, and whether his evidence be admiffible, and fufficient.

As to the first, he is known to have been neither a countryman of John Van Eyck, nor to have lived at the fame time. He wrote and published his book about 150 years after Van Eyck; he wrote and published it in Italy, at a great distance from the country and place in which Van Eyck's invention is reported to have been made, and at a great distance from the monuments, which might have afcertained the truth, or pointed out the falfehood of his affertion. Yet, how ftrange! he speaks of John Van Eyck's discovery with the confidence of an eye-witness, and gives us no authorities, except his own word, and the names of fome pictures pretended to have been the first done in oil.'

Many other arguments and facts are alleged by Mr. Rafpe, to fet afide the claim of the Van Eyck's to the honour of this invention, and invalidate the teftimony of Vafari; among others, he obferves, that in the epitaph of John Van Eyck, in the church of St. Donat, at Bruges, although his excellencies as a painter are celebrated with the highest encomiums, no mention is made of his having invented oil painting, a topic which we cannot believe his panegyrift would have overlooked, or neglected, had there been any truth in Vafari's story.

The fame filence on this fubject prevails in the epitaph on the tomb of his brother Hubert, in St John's church at Ghent.

Mr. Rafpe afterward informs us, that two celebrated antiquaries, J. F. Reimman, and Count Caylus, have difbelieved this ftory: the former, indeed, contents himfelf with doubting; but the latter, fays, We have, it is true, the cuftom of mixing our colours with oil, and making it the bafis of the greatest part of our operations; "but it is likely the ancients were lefs igno"rant of its ufe, than we imagine. They knew of many pre"parations and mixtures, and that we are fpeaking of is cer"tainly the fimpleft of any.".

But let us fee rather, and candidly examine, what Count Caylus, or any other fond and partial admirer of the higher antiquity, might have faid in favour of the Egyptians, the Grecians, and the Romans, and in fupport of their knowledge of oil colours. He and other Antiquaries have left us the task to try their monuments and their written accounts; and I fhall attempt it to the beft of my knowledge, and to the utmost of my powers.

⚫ Vom Alter der Oelmahlerey. Braunschweig. 1774. 8vo. 'I muft

I must first then fpeak of the Egyptian paintings, as being fuppofed to be in point of time anterior to thofe of the Grecians and Romans. There are many remaining, fome on walls, fome on wood, fome on cloth, and fome perhaps of a different kind, burnt-in by fire, or laid-in as Mofaic. Of the latter kind are fome enamelled figures, which are now and then found in the cabinets of the curious, and that celebrated Ifiac table in the cabinet of the King of Sardinia, which is of brafs, inlaid with filver and other metals. They can. not give us any light in refpect to the fubject and method we are fpeaking of here. The Egyptian pictures on walls, preferved in the ruins of Thebes, and in other parts of Egypt, have not been fufficiently examined by the learned travellers, who faw and noticed them, as very remarkable on account of the brightness of their unimpaired colours. Therefore no inference can be drawn from their accounts . But the pictures on the Mummies will enable us to trace fome mechanical practices of painting to the remoteft antiquity. I have examined fome of them, preferved in the British Museum, in Dr. William Hunter's cabinet here in London, and in the public library of the univerfity at Cambridge, with that attention and refpect to feveral arts, which these monuments of the earlier antiquity deserve; and if the refult of my obfervations fhould prove fatisfactory to the antiquaries and dilettanti, they are indebted for it to the neglect of other obfervers, and to the liberality of thofe gentlemen who indulged my inquifitiveness, even fo far as to allow me to try fome experiments.

Dr. Hunter's mummy is rather in a flate of decay, which proved an advantage to my enquiries; for the coffin or box of fycamore wood is almost entirely deprived of the paintings, which formerly embellifhed its outfide, but the chalk or plailler-ground, on which they were executed, remains in many parts, and appears to be laid immediately on the wood. It is loofe and friable; and does not for that reafon appear to have been applied, mixed, or much faturated with any gum or any oil.

The fame chalk ground appears on the paisted cloth, in which the mummy itself is wrapt up. It appears every where on the wood as well as the cloth in the thickness of a fixpence or a fhilling; in fhort, it has in every respect the appearance and nature of the chalkground, which is prepared with fize, and has been used by many painters of the modern fchools for dilemper painting, as well as for oil colours.

I have obferved the fame chalk-ground under the paintings of the coffin and munimy at Cambridge, and under the paintings of thofe which are preferved in the British Museum.

Here then we have traced a mechanical practice of the art to a very remote antiquity, not by any written account, but by unquestianable monuments.

Laur. Pignorii Tab. Ifiaca, and Keyfler's Travels through Italy; but especially Recherches philofophiques fur les Chinois, par Mr. de Pauw, Vol. I. where the Ifiac table is proved to be a work of the fecond century, done in Italy.'

+ See Pocock's, Shaw's, Norden's, Maillet's, and other modern travels to Egypt.'

The