This rule applies equally to the fine arts. _Hoc idem_, proceeds Velleius, _evenisse plastis, pictoribus, sculptoribus, quisquis temporum institerit notis reperiet, et eminentiam cujusque operis arctissimis temporum claustris circumdatam._[26] Of this union of men of genius in the same age, _Causas_, he says, _quum semper requiro, numquam invenio quas veras confidam_. It seems to him probable that when a man finds the first station in art occupied by another, he considers it as a post that has been rightfully seized on, and no longer aspires to the possession of it, but is humiliated, and contented to follow at a distance. But this solution I confess does not satisfy my mind. It may indeed account to us why no other Michelangiolo, or Raffaello, has ever appeared; but it does not satisfy me why these two, and the others before mentioned, should all have appeared together in the same age. For myself, I am of opinion that the age is always influenced by certain principles, universally adopted both by professors of the art, and by amateurs: which principles happening at a particular period to be the most just and accurate of their kind, produce in that age some supereminent professors, and a number of good ones. These principles change through the instability of all human affairs, and the age partakes in the change. I may add, nevertheless, that these happy periods never occur without the circumstance of a number of princes and influential individuals rivalling each other in the encouragement of works of taste; and amidst these there always arise some persons of commanding genius, who give a bias and tone to art. The history of sculpture in Athens, a city where munificence and taste went hand in hand, favours my opinion, and it is further confirmed by this golden period of Italian art. Nevertheless I do not pretend to give a verdict on this important question, but leave the decision of it to a more competent tribunal.