that if the excellency of a Painter confisted only in this kind of imitation, Painting must lose its rank, and be no longer confidered as a liberal art, and fifter to Poetry; this imitation being merely mechanical, in which the floweft intellect is always fure to fucceed beft; for the Painter of genius cannot stoop to drudgery, in which the understanding has no part; and what pretence has the art to claim kindred with Poetry, but by its powers over the imagination? To this power the Painter of genius directs him; in this fenfe he ftudies Nature, and often arrives at his end, even by being unnatural in the confined sense of the word.

THE grand ftyle of Painting requires this minute attention to be carefully avoided, and must be kept as feparate from it as the ftyle of Poetry from that of History. Poetical ornaments destroy that air of truth and plainness which ought to characterize Hiftory; but the very being of Poetry confifts in departing from this plain narration, and adopting every ornament that will warm

the imagination. To defire to see the excellencies of each ftyle united, to mingle the Dutch with the Italian School, is to join contrarieties which cannot subsist together, and which deftroy the efficacy of each other. The Italian attends only to the invariable, the great and general ideas which are fixed and inherent in univerfal Nature; the Dutch, on the contrary, to literal truth and a minute exactnefs in the detail, as I may fay, of Nature modified by accident. The attention to thefe petty peculiarities is the very caufe of this naturalnefs so much admired in the Dutch Pictures, which, if we fuppofe it to be a beauty, is certainly of a lower order, which ought to give place to a beauty of a fuperior kind, fince one cannot be obtained but by departing from the 'other.

Ir my opinion was afked concerning the works of Michael Angelo, whether they would receive any advantage from poffefling this mechanical merit, I fhould not scruple to 'fay they would not only receive no advantage, but would lofe, in a great meafure,

the

the effect which they now have on every mind fufceptible of great and noble ideas. His works may be faid to be all genius and foul, and why fhould they be loaded with heavy matter which can only counteract his purpose by retarding the progrefs of the imagination.

If this opinion fhould be thought one of the wild extravagancies of Enthusiasm, I fhall only fay, that those who cenfure it are not converfant in the Works of the great Mafters. It is very difficult to determine the exact degree of enthufiafm that the arts. of Painting and Poetry may admit. There may perhaps be too great an indulgence as well as too great a restraint of imagination; and if the one produces incoherent monfters, the other produces what is full as bad, lifeless infipidity. An intimate knowledge of the paffions, and good fenfe, but not common fenfe, must at last determine its limits. It has been thought, and I believe with reafon, that Michael Angelo fometimes tranfgreffed thofe limits; and I think I have feen figures of him of which it was very difficult

H 4

cult to determine whether they were in the highest degree fublime or extremely ridiculous. Such faults may be faid to be the ebullitions of Genius; but at least he had this merit, that he never was infipid, and whatever paffion his works may excite, they will always efcape contempt.

WHAT I have had under confideration is the fublimeft ftyle, particularly that of Mithael Angelo, the Homer of Painting. Other kinds may admit of this naturalness, which of the lowest kind is the chief merit; but in Painting, as in Poetry, the highest style has the leaft of common nature.

ONE may very fafely recommend a little more Enthufiafm to the modern Painters ; too much is certainly not the vice of the prefent age. The Italians feem to have been continually declining in this refpect from the time of Michael Angelo to that of Carla Maratti, and from thence to the very bathos of infipidity to which they are now funk; fo that there is no need of remarking, that where I mentioned the Italian Painters

in

I

in oppofition to the Dutch, I mean not the moderns, but the heads of the old Roman and Bolognian Schools; nor did I mean to include in my idea of an Italian Painter, the Venetian School, which may be faid to be the Dutch part of the Italian Genius. have only to add a word of advice to the Painters, that however excellent they may be in painting naturally, they would not flatter themselves very much upon it; and to the Connoiffeurs, that when they see a cat or a fiddle painted fo finely, that, as the phrafe is, It looks as if you could take it up, they would not for that reason immediately compare the Painter to Raffaelle and Michael Angela.