INDEX.

Achilles, sceptre of, 98; shield of, 113.

Action, culminating point of an, not the point to be represented by the artist, 16.

Albani, Cardinal Alexander, his discovery of a vase which illustrated the date of the Laocoon, 178 et seq.

Anacreon, two odes of, 133, 139.

Apelles, his picture of Diana, 143.

Ariosto, his description of Alcina, 128, 138.

Aristophanes, element of disgust used by, 161.

Aristotle, advice of, to Protogenes, 76; his reason why we receive pleasure from a faithful copy of the disagreeable, 154.

Art should express nothing essentially transitory, 17.

Arts among the ancients, subject to the control of law, 10.

Bacchus, how represented in poetry and painting, 56 et seq.

Beauty, the supreme law of the imitative arts, 11; subordinated in modern art to other ends, 16; representations of physical, the province of painting, not of poetry, 126.

Boivin, his explanations of Homer, 118, 121.

Calaber, Quintus, his rendering of the story of Laocoon, 34; his account of the death of Thersites, 150.

Callimachus, his picture of famine, 165.

Caricature, law against, among the Thebans, 9.

Caylus, Count, some points in his work considered, 71, 77, 80, 82, 86, 87, 93; his sketch for a picture of Helen, 140.

Chateaubrun, his representation of Philoctetes, 25.

Cicero, his views in regard to bodily pain, 28.

Cleyn, Francis, illustrations by, 39.

248Constancy, how represented in art, 68 et seq.

Dacier, Madame, her translation of Homer, 113.

Dante, his description of the starvation of Ugolino, 166.

Deformity, physical, in art, produces disgust, 159.

Disgust produced more through the other senses than through that of sight, 160; object of, in painting, 167.

Disgusting, the, its use in expressing the horror of famine, 164.

Dolce, his dialogue on Painting, 131.

Drama, expression of suffering in the, 21 et seq.

Dryden, his Ode on Cecilia’s Day, 89.

Flaccus, Valerius, his description of an angry Venus, 57 et seq.

French language, not adapted to translation of Homer, 112.

German language, compared to the Greek, 113.

Gladiator, Borghese, the author’s theory in regard to the, 184 et seq.

Gladiatorial shows, effect of, 29.

Haller, Von, description quoted from his “Alps,” 103.

Hercules, as represented by Sophocles, 6; the, of Sophocles, 31.

Hogarth, his criticism of the Apollo Belvidere, 145.

Homer, expressions of pain in his heroes, 4; representation of his heroes, 79 et seq.; his descriptions not generally available for pictures, 83, 143; his picture of Pandarus, 89; style of, 93; his description of the chariot of Juno, 94; his description of the sceptre of Agamemnon, 95; of the shield of Achilles, 98, 113, 118; of the bow of Pandarus, 99; his indebtedness to the flexibility of the Greek language, 112; his description of the beleaguered city, 121; avoids detailed description, 127; his representation of Helen, 136; his Thersites, 148 et seq.

Imitations of the poet by the artist and the reverse, 49 et seq.

Invention required less of the artist than of the poet, 72 et seq.

Junius, Francis, an unsafe authority, 188.

Juno, how represented in ancient art, 57.

Kleist, Von, his own judgment of his poem “Spring,” 108.

Klotzius, on the effects of different forms of the disagreeable in art, 158.

Laocoon, of Virgil, 20 et seq.; compared with the statue, 36 et seq.; contains traits unavailable for the artist, 42; the group of, possibly suggested by Virgil’s description, 43 et seq.; the, probable date of, 170 et seq.

Longinus, his remarks in regard to eloquence and poetry, 188.

Lucian represents physical beauty by comparison with statues, 135.

249Manasses, Constantinus, his pictures of Helen, 127.

Martiani, his opinion in regard to the date of the Laocoon, 34 et seq.

Mazzuoli, his “Rape of the Sabines,” 109.

Mengs, his criticism on Raphael’s drapery, 110.

Milton furnishes few subjects for a painter, 87.

Minerva, how represented in ancient art, 57, 78.

Montfaucon, his want of taste, 14; his opinions in regard to the date of the Laocoon, 33 et seq.

Olympic judges, law of the, 10.

Ovid, his description of Lesbia, 137; his description of the punishment of Marsyas, 163; his picture of famine, 165.

Pain, expression of, in Sophocles, 3; in Homer, 4, 5; among Europeans, 4; among the Greeks, 5; in its disfiguring extreme, not compatible with beauty, 13; expression of, among the English, 26.

Painting among the Greeks confined to imitation of beauty, 8.

Passion, violent, not expressed in ancient art, 12.

Pauson, character of his pictures, 9.

Phidias, his indebtedness to Homer, 144 et seq.

Philoctetes of Sophocles, the, his sufferings compared with those of Laocoon, 3; the, of Pythagoras Leontinus, 14; of Sophocles, the embodiment of physical and mental suffering, 23, 24, 30.

Picturesque, the, in poetry, 88.

Pisander, possibly Virgil’s predecessor in the history of Laocoon, 34.

Pliny, his mention of the Laocoon, 172; of famous Greek sculptors, 173 et seq.

Poetry, how it surpasses art in description of physical beauty, 137 et seq.

Polygnotus, pictures of, 123 et seq.

Pope, contempt of, for descriptive poems, 108; his explanations of Homer, 122 et seq.

Pordenone, his picture of the entombment, 167.

Pyreicus, character of his pictures, 9.

Religion, influence of, on art, 62 et seq.

Richardson, remarks of, on Virgil’s Laocoon, 45; his criticism of Pordenone, 167.

Ridiculous, the, heightened by an element of disgust, 161.

Sadolet, extract from, 46.

Shakespeare, his use of ugliness in the character of Richard III., 151.

250Sophocles, a Laocoon among his lost works, 6; his description of the desert cave of Philoctetes, 163.

Spence, Rev. Mr., criticism of his work “Polymetis,” 50; notions of, in regard to the resemblance between painting and poetry, 55, 57.

Statius, his description of an angry Venus, 57 et seq.

Statues, beautiful, produced beautiful men, 10.

Stoicism not adapted to the drama, 6.

Stosch, Herr von, his opinion of the Borghese Gladiator, 183.

Symbols, use of, in poetry and painting, 67 et seq.

Temperance, how represented in art, 68 et seq.

Timanthes, picture of Iphigenia by, 12.

Timomachus, his representations of Ajax and Medea, 18.

Titian, his picture of the Prodigal Son, 109.

Ugliness, as used in poetry, 149, 156; as used in painting, 153, 156.

Urania, how represented in art, 67.

Vesta, how worshipped, 64 et seq.

Virgil, description from the Georgics, 106; his description of the shield of Æneas, 114; the Dido of, 133; his introduction of the Harpies, 166.

Winkelmann, quoted, 1; soundness of his criticism doubted, 2; his opinion of the Laocoon, 168; his opinion of the Borghese Gladiator, 183; criticism of, 187 et seq.

Zeuxis, his picture of Helen, 140 et seq.

Messrs. Roberts Brothers’ Publications.

GOETHE’S

Hermann and Dorothea

TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN

By ELLEN FROTHINGHAM.

WITH ILLUSTRATIONS.

Thin 8vo, cloth, gilt, bevelled boards. Price $2.00.

A cheaper edition, 16mo, cloth. Price $1.00.

“Miss Frothingham’s translation is something to be glad of: it lends itself kindly to perusal, and it presents Goethe’s charming poem in the metre of the original.... It is not a poem which could be profitably used in an argument for the enlargement of the sphere of woman: it teaches her subjection, indeed, from the lips of a beautiful girl, which are always so fatally convincing; but it has its charm, nevertheless, and will serve at least for an agreeable picture of an age when the ideal woman was a creature around which grew the beauty and comfort and security of home.”—Atlantic Monthly.

“The poem itself is bewitching. Of the same metre as Longfellow’s ‘Evangeline,’ its sweet and measured cadences carry the reader onward with a real pleasure as he becomes more and more absorbed in this descriptive wooing song. It is a sweet volume to read aloud in a select circle of intelligent friends.”—Providence Press.

“Miss Frothingham has done a good service, and done it well, in translating this famous idyl, which has been justly called ‘one of the most faultless poems of modern times.’ Nothing can surpass the simplicity, tenderness, and grace of the original, and these have been well preserved in Miss Frothingham’s version. Her success is worthy of the highest praise, and the mere English reader can scarcely fail to read the poem with the same delight with which it has always been read by those familiar with the German. Its charming pictures of domestic life, the strength and delicacy of its characterization, the purity of tone and ardent love of country which breathe through it, must always make it one of the most admired of Goethe’s works.”—Boston Christian Register.

Sold everywhere. Mailed, postpaid, by the Publishers,

ROBERTS BROTHERS, Boston.

SANSKRIT AND ITS KINDRED LITERATURES.

STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE MYTHOLOGY.

By LAURA ELIZABETH POOR.

16mo. Cloth. 400 pages Price, $2.00.

The book goes over ground which has been made new by the modern discoveries in philology and mythology. It describes and compares the literatures of the different Aryan families, and brings forward the comparative mythology, as it manifests itself in each different country, filling a place which is almost empty in that department, and giving in a brief space information which is scattered through hundreds of different volumes. In fact, there is no one book which contains just what this does,—a sketch of comparative mythology, with history enough to make it clear and connected. It creates and fills a place of its own.

Rev. Dr. F. H. Hedge, of Harvard University, Cambridge, says of it:—

“The unpretending volume with the above title is just what was needed to popularize the results of the researches of such scholars as Wilson, Spiegel, Grimm, Monier Williams, Müller, Whitney, and others, and to place them within easy reach of readers who may not have access to those writers. The author’s task seems to have been well executed; she has produced an entertaining and instructive work, full of interesting matter, illustrated by choice extracts, and written in an easy and animated style. Such books, of course, are not consulted as final authorities, but this is well worth reading by all who desire an initial acquaintance with the subjects discussed.”

“One of the chief merits of the volume is the clearness with which the author expresses her thoughts, and the skill with which she disentangles the subtleties of metaphysical and religious doctrines, making them plain to the most casual reader.”—Boston Courier.

“The book, of course, is an elementary one, but it must be valuable to the young student who desires to get a complete view of literature and of the reciprocal relations of its various divisions. It can hardly fail to interest the reader in the new science of which it gives results, and lead him to more exhaustive studies for himself. If such a work could be made a school text-book it would give pupils a long start in their pursuit of a correct and systematic knowledge of language and literature.”—Buffalo Courier.

“Let no intelligent reader be deterred from its diligent perusal by the learned name which introduces the interesting book now offered to the public to illustrate studies in comparative mythology. The word Sanskrit has an abstruse sound to unenlightened ears, but there is nothing abstruse in the subject as here presented, and nothing difficult to be understood by persons of ordinary culture.... The writer’s treatment of the subject is much to be commended. It is bright, fresh, earnest, and strong. She arouses the reader’s attention from the beginning, charms his imagination by choice extracts from the literary treasures of past ages, pleases his taste by drawing parallelisms between the myths of the past and the fables of the present, convinces him that one literature unites different nations and different centuries, and that each nation is a link in the great chain of development of the human mind. We earnestly commend this work to all who would understand the unity and continuity of literature. It is full of general information and instruction, the style is earnest and easy, the enthusiasm sympathetic, and the presentation specially thought-stirring and satisfactory.”—Providence Journal.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

Silently corrected palpable typographical errors; retained non-standard spellings and dialect.

Reindexed footnotes using numbers and collected together at the end of the last chapter.