his own works, and probably aided him in the operation, not “had under his hands,” as translated—“quibus manum _admovisset_.” Pliny had in his eye the very _modus operandi_ of the encaustic process, the holding heated iron within a certain distance of the object. But what was the operation? Does the text authorise anything like the painting the statue? Certainly not. And however triumphantly it is brought forward, there is a hitch in the argument which must be confessed. In making this confession, it would have been as well to have referred to Pliny himself for the meaning. Pliny uses the verb _illinebat_, in grammatical relation to _circumlitio_, in the sense of varnishing, in that well-known passage in which he speaks of the varnish used by Apelles—“Unum imitari nemo potuit, quod absoluta opera _illinebat_ atramento ita tenui,” &c. The meaning of this passage hangs on the word _circumlitio_. Winckelmann follows the mass of commentators in understanding this as referring to some mode of _polishing_ the statues. But Quatremère de Quincey, in his magnificent work _Le Jupiter Olympien_, satisfactorily shows this to be untenable, not only “because no sculptor could think of preferring such of his statues as had been better polished, but also because Nicias being a _painter_, not a sculptor, his services must have been those of a painter.” If these are the only “becauses” of Quatremère de Quincey, they are anything but satisfactory; for a sculptor may esteem all his works as equal, and then prefer such as had the advantage of Nicias’s _circumlitio_. Nor does the _because_ of Nicias being a painter at all define the _circumlitio_ to be a plastering with stucco, or a thick daubing with vermilion; for, be it borne in mind, this vermilion painting is always spoken of as a solid coating. As to Nicias’s services, “What were they?” asks the author of the _Historical Evidence in Mr Jones’s Apology_. “Nicias was an _encaustic painter_, and hence it is clear that his _circumlitio_, his mode of finishing the statues, so highly prized by Praxiteles, must have been the application of encaustic painting to those parts which the sculptor wished to have ornamented. For it is quite idle to suppose a sculptor like Praxiteles would allow another sculptor to _finish_ his works. The rough work may be done by other hands, but the finishing is always left to the artist. The statue completed, there still remained the painter’s art to be employed, and for that Nicias is renowned.”—Indeed! This is exceedingly childish: first the truism that one sculptor would not have another to _finish_ his work—of course, not; and then that the work was not finished until the painter had regularly, according to his best skill and art—which art and skill were required—been employed in the painting it as he would paint a picture, “_for which he was renowned_;”—that is, variously colour all the parts—till he had variously coloured hair and eyes, and