[Suggested translation, Marije Osnabrugge:] It shows from that what has already been said, that the true Artists who carry around an unadulterated example of the perfect beauty in their mind, normally also tend to pour out a certain glimpse of these internal representations in all their works. […]It has also been noticed very well by an old Orator {…} that the depiction of the most notable beauty is the hardest; since the deformity is easily expressed by certain marks, the comparison of true beauty in contrast is very uncommon [NDR: so little common], like beauty itself.

[Suggested translation, Marije Osnabrugge:] As the Athenians thought to have great reason to honour and serve their patron god Minerva above all the other Gods and Godesses, as such they thought it well to erect a beautiful statue for her on an elevated base; they commissioned two of the very best Artists, Alcamenes and Phidias¸to do this; and they meanwhile let it be known that the statue that was to be judged the best in everyone’s judgement, would be paid for with a nice sum of money, so the Artists eagerly went to work, driven by the hope for great profit and greater honour that appeared would follow from it. Alcamenes was completely inexperienced in the Mathematical Arts, and thought that he had acquitted himself farily well, when his statue appeared beautiful to those who were standing close. Phidias on the other hand had decided, according to the knowledge that he had from the Geometrical and the Optical sciences, that the whole appearance of the statue would change following the situation of the envisioned height, (…) as such saw the tides change within a matter of hours; because as the sweetness that one could perceive up close in the lovely statue of Alcamenes, disappeared because of the height and changed into a certain hardness, as such the crooked deformity of Phidias’ statue was softened miraculously by the forshorthening of the heightened location, and the difference in craftsmanship between the two artists was so remarkably large, that the one received the deserved praise, the other, on the other hand, was brought to shame with his work, see […]

ALCAMENES
PHIDIAS
TZETZES, Joannes

In the Dutch edition, JUnius is much more explicit than in the English and Latin edition in his analysis of why Phidias’ sculpture was more successful in the end. He explains and identifies the foreshortening as the decisive factor. [MO]

[suggested translation, Marije Osnabrugge:] Many amongst the Old and Young have thought that it is not easy to say nor determine what it really is, that we call Beautiful; and that it is not clear to pinpoint, by which Observations, it is to be depicted perfectly and clear: […] And since it cannot be denied that there are also steps in Beauty, and that one finds Beautiful, more Beautiful and even more Beautiful; as such there is no reason to stop us from thinking that a Most Beautiful also exists. When Aristotle was asked what Beauty was, and why all that is beautiful is loved ! he answered: That is the question of a blind man, {Aristotle thought that one should not ask what nature is.} Mister Cats has not dared to explain himself outspokenly about the different types of Beauty, as he utters these uncertain words about it somewhere: They continue to dispute, everywhere they doubt, What it is that one can judge to be BEAUTY in Man, There is barely any people, or it has different grounds, On which someone is thought BEAUTIFUL or UGLY. Especially since the different Peoples are not only different in choosing and approving Beauty, but that we can find some who place the Ugliness and Deformity before the Beauty in contrast to other Judges; such has brought doubt to unstable brains; whether the Beauty exists but in the Choice, or in Fashion, or in a personal reasoning of Men. {In the Choice of Beauty one did sometimes perceive Ugliness as Beautiful.}

Anciens (les)
CATS, Jacob
Modernes (Les)

[suggested translation, Marije Osnabrugge:] When we want to keep to this truthful description [ndr: by Cicero] of Beauty, we should remark about this with regard to the general Art of Painting, that reaching Beauty mainly consists in this, that the Figures have a proper division of limbs: from this it necessarily follows that those Limbs should be known profoundly with regard to their form, place, connection and function; like we set out to do in this treatise. Many quick Minds have noticed for a long time that the depiction of Beauty and Perfection is very difficult, because its opposite – that is the Ugliness and Deformity – are born spontaneously or through different coincidences; or they can be expressed with certain marks or recognizable treats in many different ways and in levels and parts; Yes sometimes they mostly come into existence through the incapable treatment of Artists; But Beauty is not so easy, because it can only be shown through her simple whole; which Whole cannot be perceived in its unicity in the imitated Figures, before all the Parts, coincide without the least divergence. This is why some have said about this important part of the Art of Painting, that it was just as uncommon to imitate Beauty in the right way, as Beauty itself [ndr: is uncommon].

[suggested translation, Marije Osnabrugge:] …like the Physicians and Surgeons by the dozens (since mass-producers are botchers?) have pointed out different Shapes of Heads; which – as they most of all diverge from the generally Beautiful and Well-made – do not need to be repeated here, while the Art of Painting can do without all Deformity. There are so many elements in the common Lump or Form of the Head, that a Portrait or Face that is Painted after Life, cannot even resemble it a bit, if the General [characteristics] of the whole Head have not been observed in it, as we have elaborately taught in our Teykenkunde [ndr: reference to his own book].

GOEREE, Willem