ENCAUSTIC:OR,MethodofPaintingIn the Manner of theAncients.
A relation of my proceedings, to reduce this singular invention into a regular system agreeable to reason, and practical in itself, would be tedious and superfluous: To enter upon the process without giving the reader some little account of the matter, would be improper. As something is required to introduce the reader, and as the booksI must refer to are not in every body’s possession, I shall inlieu of introduction, insert the whole as laid before the Royal Society,—which is as follows.
Concerning an ancient Method of Painting. Revived by CountCaylus.
CountCaylus, a member of the Academy of Inscriptions, had undertaken to explain an obscure passage inPlinythe naturalist. This author (whom I have not now before me) says in some place of his works, that “the ancients painted with burnt wax”2and we have it from tradition, that pictures of this kind were very durable.This was the passage, the count undertook to clear up, in trying all the different ways that are possible to paint in wax; and after many experiments, he hit upon a very simple method, of which he made a secret, in order to excite the curiosity of the public.The several artists who were desirous of knowing by what means the count came to make this discovery, made several attempts themselves; but in a great number of trials, only two are worth mentioning.The first was to melt wax and oil of turpentine together,and use it for mixing the colours. But this method does not at all explainPliny’smeaning; because wax is not burnt in this way of managing it: and besides, this method has two defects; the oil of turpentine dries too fast, and does not allow the painter sufficient time to blend and unite his colours.The second method is very ingenious, and seems to come up toPliny’snotion very well; it is as follows; the wax is melted with strong lixivium of salt of tartar, and with this the colours are ground. When the picture is finished, it is gradually put to the fire, which increasesthe heat by degrees; the wax melts, swells, and is bloated up upon the picture; then the picture is removed gradually from the fire, and the colours do not at all appear to have been disordered; the colours then become unalterable by the action of the fire, and even spirit of wine has been burnt upon them without doing them the least harm.However, the following is the Count deCaylus’smethod, which is much more simple; according to which the head of Minerva was painted,which was so much admired by all the connoisseurs.First.The cloth or wood designed for the picture is waxed over, by only rubbing it simply with a piece of bees-wax.Secondly.The colours are mixed up with common water; but as these colours will not adhere to the wax, the whole picture is to be first rubbed over with Spanish chalk, or whitening, and then the colours are used.Thirdly.When the picture is dry, it is put near the fire,whereby the wax melts, and absorbs all the colours.It must be allowed, that nothing can be more simple than this method; and it is thought, that this kind of painting is capable of withstanding the injuries of the weather, and last longer than painting in oil; which I will not answer for.The effect produced by these colours upon wax is very singular; nor can one have any notion of it without seeing it. The colours have not that natural varnish or shining, that they acquire with oil; but youare capable of seeing the picture in any light, or in whatsoever situation you place it; in short there can be no false glare or light upon the picture for the spectators: the colours are secured, are firm, and will bear washing; and have a property, which I look upon as the most important of any, which is, that they have smoaked this picture in places subject to foul vapours, and to smoke in chimnies; and then by being exposed to the dew, it became as clean as if it had been but just painted.
CountCaylus, a member of the Academy of Inscriptions, had undertaken to explain an obscure passage inPlinythe naturalist. This author (whom I have not now before me) says in some place of his works, that “the ancients painted with burnt wax”2and we have it from tradition, that pictures of this kind were very durable.
This was the passage, the count undertook to clear up, in trying all the different ways that are possible to paint in wax; and after many experiments, he hit upon a very simple method, of which he made a secret, in order to excite the curiosity of the public.
The several artists who were desirous of knowing by what means the count came to make this discovery, made several attempts themselves; but in a great number of trials, only two are worth mentioning.
The first was to melt wax and oil of turpentine together,and use it for mixing the colours. But this method does not at all explainPliny’smeaning; because wax is not burnt in this way of managing it: and besides, this method has two defects; the oil of turpentine dries too fast, and does not allow the painter sufficient time to blend and unite his colours.
The second method is very ingenious, and seems to come up toPliny’snotion very well; it is as follows; the wax is melted with strong lixivium of salt of tartar, and with this the colours are ground. When the picture is finished, it is gradually put to the fire, which increasesthe heat by degrees; the wax melts, swells, and is bloated up upon the picture; then the picture is removed gradually from the fire, and the colours do not at all appear to have been disordered; the colours then become unalterable by the action of the fire, and even spirit of wine has been burnt upon them without doing them the least harm.
However, the following is the Count deCaylus’smethod, which is much more simple; according to which the head of Minerva was painted,which was so much admired by all the connoisseurs.
First.The cloth or wood designed for the picture is waxed over, by only rubbing it simply with a piece of bees-wax.
Secondly.The colours are mixed up with common water; but as these colours will not adhere to the wax, the whole picture is to be first rubbed over with Spanish chalk, or whitening, and then the colours are used.
Thirdly.When the picture is dry, it is put near the fire,whereby the wax melts, and absorbs all the colours.
It must be allowed, that nothing can be more simple than this method; and it is thought, that this kind of painting is capable of withstanding the injuries of the weather, and last longer than painting in oil; which I will not answer for.
The effect produced by these colours upon wax is very singular; nor can one have any notion of it without seeing it. The colours have not that natural varnish or shining, that they acquire with oil; but youare capable of seeing the picture in any light, or in whatsoever situation you place it; in short there can be no false glare or light upon the picture for the spectators: the colours are secured, are firm, and will bear washing; and have a property, which I look upon as the most important of any, which is, that they have smoaked this picture in places subject to foul vapours, and to smoke in chimnies; and then by being exposed to the dew, it became as clean as if it had been but just painted.
These are all the contents of the letter, laid before the RoyalSociety by a member of that learned body, who accompanied it with a series of very acute and learned observations, which, with an extensive knowledge, shew an inclination to prove that the count’s method could not be the encaustic of the ancients, and thatencausto pingendicould be nothing else but enameling.——
It is neither my business nor intention to enter into discussions; it would be too difficult a task to prove that the count’s invention comes up toPliny’smeaning; no certain evidence can be brought neither for nor against it. Any discovery thattends towards improvement of arts and sciences is valuable; that the count’s invention is of this kind, will appear to every unprejudiced mind.
Therefore it matters not if the ancients did so or not.
But, to give my opinion only——the numberless experiments I made to bring the new encaustic into a regular system—the repeated trials to explainPliny’smeaning any other way that would answer the general ends of painting, &c. induce me to believe thatencausto pingendiof the ancients could not be enameling, but must havebeen some manner of painting very near of kin to that which is the subject of this treatise. Besides the clear and expressive words of our ancient author—Ceris pingere ac picturam inurere—and where he speaks of their ship painting—resolutis igni ceris penicilio utendi—carry a silent proof with them, that the Latin verburereought not to be understood in so fierce a degree as enameling requires.3
In both the above cited passagescerais in the plural number;and for this very reason I believe it can mean nothing else but bees-wax simple, or compounded with other ingredients capable to sympathise therewith.
It would be ridiculous to suppose the Latin tongue so defective inPliny’stime, as not to afford two distinct names for two things so opposite as enameling and ship painting are.
I cannot conceive what good enamel would or could do to their ships, without undergoing the operation of the fire after being painted. Nor can Iform any idea of a Roman enameled first-rate man of war.
The most probable reason, forPliny’snot giving a better account of particulars may be, that he knowing nothing at all of the matter, used the term of art then in vogue; or was imposed upon by artists who did not chuse to part with the secret of their art.
Instances of this kind we have every day.——Arts and trades abound with jargon and mystical names, which, if taken or explained literally, would often prove but little analogous to their subject. Writers thatpay no regard to that, and without farther scrutiny speak and relate what they are told, must of course be unintelligible. Hence it comes that most of our dictionaries on arts and sciences, and the greatest number of books on painting, are so perplexing; and in many a point rivalPlinyin obscurity.
To write upon a subject and unfold its mystery, one ought to be practically acquainted with it; a superficial drawing is not enough; to teach others how to go to work, the section is wanted.
If all books upon arts and sciences, manufactures and mechanics, had been or could be written by the respective professors thereof, things would appear in another light; we should, perhaps, not have the finest language in those performances; but we do not want that, plain truth and common sense is all that is required; if a guide leads us the right way, we need not mind his dress.
I shall make no apology for this performance of mine: if the contents do not speak for themselves, my abilities as a writer would but weakly support them, only as new inventionsare frequently condemned for no other reason but because they are new; it becomes me to acquaint the public, that I should never have gone so far as to publish this system, if I had not been convinced of its merit by experience and practice; I made many and various experiments (as will be mentioned in the sequel) to ascertain its stability; and having painted several pictures of different sizes, I can answer for its practicability. In short, it is a manner of painting susceptible of all the boldness, freedom and delicacy of any other whatsoever; you may leave off and cherish your work at pleasure,you cannot fatigue your colours, you are not subject to that inconvenience attending oil painting, viz. of setting one’s picture by to dry, &c.
You will have all the effects and sweetness of painting in oil, and the colours will not be liable to fade and change; no damp can affect it, no corrosive will hurt it; nor can the colours crack and fall in shivers from off the canvas.
Let no-body think me too positive, or intoxicated with my own notions, before they have gone through the whole treatise, and made a few experiments.I advance facts, and not conjectures only.
It is not my intention to quarrel or depreciate oil painting, nor will I attempt to deny its true merit; therefore hope it will not be considered as a crime to propose a method that will equal its perfections, and surpass it for duration and stability of colours. I tell artists what I know, they may do what they judge proper. Though I bestow encomiums upon my subject it is not with a design to impose; I am not self-conceited, or foolish enough to think or believe that Rynolds or Ransey, Scott orLambert, &c. &c. will take up at once and prefer my new system to that they practised for many years with success and applause—they, and every body else, may try; a trifling expence, and a few idle hours will afford experiments by which they will know if what I advance will really be an advantage to their works and themselves. And how far it will answer, either whole or in part, the general ends of painting, one single sketch will be enough to judge by; in arts, one experience is worth a thousand conjectures.
In the prosecution of my system, oil-colours came always in for a part of the experiment, in opposition to those fixed with wax, in order to judge better and with more precision of their variation. By this it happened that I often painted oil-colours over a waxed ground; which colours always appeared brighter and cleaner than the very same painted over an oil-cloth; at least I fancied that dead colouring in water colours and finishing in oil, was an experiment worth trying. For this purpose (as portrait painting is not my province) I pitched upon a head of Sir Godfrey Kneller, a gentleman and friend hadsent me to copy small in oil; accordingly I dead coloured it in water colours and fixed them with wax, and afterwards finished it in oil-colours, not only to my satisfaction and surprize, but every body’s else that saw it; the brightness and transparency of its colours is not to be conceived. I copied the same head again in oil-colours only, and with all imaginable care and attention, but the colouring of the latter looked dull in opposition to the other4; to give reasons for this incidentis more than I can do; I shall give a few conjectures, and conjectures only, upon it, under the article of experiments.
If I should not gain the approbation and good will of the oil painting faculty, for a few hints: I am sure those artists who profess painting in crayons will be beholden to me for what I shall communicate to them—a method to fix crayons or pastelle.
Every body knows the beauties and pleasing effects of those paintings and their perishable qualities so well, that to enlarge upon is needless to bestowgreat encomiums upon my secret, which is so closely connected with encaustic for the pencil, and whose merit has already been mentioned, would be superfluous; the process and experiments I am now going to unfold will be of more weight than all my reasonings previous thereto.
To make the whole familiar and easy to all capacities, I thought it convenient to lay down the whole penciling system under five different articles or periods, according as they succeed each other in the execution; and to keep the thread of the proceeding uninterrupted,I shall make a few observations upon every article in particular, and there give and explain the different methods that may be practised for the same end, together with my reason, and why I deviated in some parts from CountCaylus’ssystem.
The operations for painting with crayons will be treated and explained separately, and upon the same plan. Lastly, the experiments will come in to illustrate both, and verify what I advance.