painting, without ever knowing there was a nobler to pursue. Albert Durer, as Vasari has justly remarked, would probably have been one of the first painters of his age, (and he lived in an era of great Artists,) had he been initiated into those great principles of the Art, which were so well understood and practised by his contemporaries in Italy. But unluckily having never seen or heard of any other manner, he, without doubt, considered his own as perfect.

As for the various departments of painting, which do not presume to make such high pretensions, they are many. None of them are without their merit, though none enter into competition with this universal presiding idea of the Art. The painters who have applied themselves more particularly to low and vulgar characters, and who express with precision the various shades of passion, as they are exhibited by vulgar minds, (such as we see in the works of Hogarth,) deserve great praise; but as their genius has been employed on low and confined subjects, the praise which we give must be as limited as its object." The merry-making or quarrelling of the Boors of Teniers; the same sort of

11 The highest praise of genius in Art is undoubtedly, and by general consent, ceded to the Artist who produces a great historical picture, as it requires a greater power of imagination and a greater variety of acquirements than any other branch: but let us not deceive ourselves; the world acknowledges but few works of this superlative class; and mediocre painters in the highest walks are inferior to those who excel in the lower. Original invention is the only sure test of genius, and to this Shakespeare, Cervantes, and others owe their superiority over all those Satellites who have moved in Homer's sphere, Milton alone excepted. The works of Hogarth have created a class of painting new to Art, and raised the inferior walks of the English school, by teaching the capability of their being ennobled by the infusion of moral and poetical embellishments. Notwithstanding his works are faulty in many necessary adjuncts of painting, his forms harsh and angular, his draperies fluttering and ungraceful, his perspective unpleasant in choice; yet, with all these defects, an Englishman points to Hogarth as a proof of the genius of his country. It is true that he is wanting in many of those graces which an Academy would have furnished him with; but the system of generalising in works of this class, at the expense of strong individual nature, is often problematical. The Royal Academy has now been established nearly a century, and has raised the general taste of the country to a gratifying height, when we look back on the periods when it was in the hands of Thornhill, Riley, Hudson, and Hayman: we must not, however, be blind to its defects; the strong characteristics of individual Nature have been too much enfeebled by the influence of those dogmas established within its walls.

H

productions of Brouwer, or Ostade, are excellent in their kind; and the excellence and its praise will be in proportion, as, in those limited subjects, and peculiar forms, they introduce more or less of the expression of those passions, as they appear in general and more enlarged Nature. This principle may be applied to the Battle-pieces of Bourgognone, the French Gallantries of Watteau, and even beyond the exhibition of animal life, to the Landscapes of Claude Lorraine, and the Sea-Views of Vandervelde. All these painters have, in general, the same right, in different degrees, to the name of a painter, which a satirist, an epigrammatist, a sonneteer, a writer of pastorals or descriptive poetry, has to that of a poet.

In the same rank, and perhaps of not so great merit, is the cold painter of portraits. But his correct and just imitation of his object has its merit. Even the painter of still life, whose highest ambition is to give a minute representation of every part of those low objects which he sets before him, deserves praise in proportion to his attainment; because no part of this excellent Art, so much the ornament of polished life, is destitute of value and use. These, however, are by no means the views to which the mind of the Student ought to be primarily directed. Having begun by aiming at better things, if from particular inclination, or from the taste of the time and place he lives in, or from necessity, or from failure in the highest attempts, he is obliged to descend lower, he will bring into the lower sphere of Art a grandeur of composition and character, that will raise and ennoble his works far above their natural rank.

A man is not weak, though he may not be able to wield the club of Hercules; nor does a man always practise that which he esteems the best; but does that which he can best do. In moderate attempts there are many walks open to the Artist. But as the idea of beauty is of necessity but one, so there can be but one great mode of painting; the leading principle of which I have endeavoured to explain.

I should be sorry, if what is here recommended should be at all

understood to countenance a careless or undetermined manner of painting. For though the painter is to overlook the accidental discriminations of Nature, he is to exhibit distinctly, and with precision, the general forms of things. A firm and determined outline is one of the characteristics of the great style in painting; and let me add, that he who possesses the knowledge of the exact form which every part of Nature ought to have, will be fond of expressing that knowledge with correctness and precision in all his works.

To conclude; I have endeavoured to reduce the idea of beauty to general principles: and I had the pleasure to observe that the Professor of Painting proceeded in the same method, when he showed you that the artifice of contrast was founded but on one principle. I am convinced that this is the only means of advancing science; of clearing the mind from a confused heap of contradictory observations, that do but perplex and puzzle the Student, when he compares them, or misguide him if he gives himself up to their authority; bringing them under one general head, can alone give rest and satisfaction to an inquisitive mind.

DISCOURSE IV.

[delivered on THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE PRIZES, December 10TH, 1771.]

GENERAL IDEAS, THE PRESIDING PRINCIPLE WHICH REGULATES EVERY PART OF ART; INVENTION, EXPRESSION, COLOURING, AND DRAPERY-TWO DISTINCT STYLES IN HISTORY-PAINTING; THE GRAND AND THE ORNAMENTAL-THE SCHOOLS IN WHICH EACH IS TO BE FOUND-THE COMPOSITE STYLE-THE STYLE FORMED ON LOCAL CUSTOMS AND HABITS, OR A PARTIAL VIEW OF NATURE.

GENTLEMEN,

THE value and rank of every art is in proportion to the mental labour employed in it, or the mental pleasure produced by it. As this principle is observed or neglected, our profession becomes either a liberal art, or a mechanical trade. In the hands of one man it makes the highest pretensions, as it is addressed to the noblest faculties: in those of another it is reduced to a mere matter of ornament; and the painter has but the humble province of furnishing our apartments with elegance.

This exertion of mind, which is the only circumstance that truly ennobles our Art, makes the great distinction between the Roman and Venetian schools. I have formerly observed, that perfect form is produced by leaving out particularities, and retaining only general ideas: I shall now endeavour to show that this principle, which I have proved to be metaphysically just, extends itself to every part of the Art; that it gives what is called the grand style, to Invention, to composition, to Expression, and even to Colouring and Drapery.

Invention in Painting does not imply the invention of the subject; for that is commonly supplied by the Poet or Historian. by the Poet or Historian. With respect to

the choice, no subject can be proper that is not generally interesting.1 It ought to be either some eminent instance of heroic action, or heroic suffering. There must be something either in the action, or in the object, in which men are universally concerned, and which powerfully strikes upon the public sympathy.

Strictly speaking, indeed, no subject can be of universal, hardly can it be of general, concern; but there are events and characters so popularly known in those countries where our Art is in request, that they may be considered as sufficiently general for all our purposes. Such are the great events of Greek and Roman fable and history, which early education, and the usual course of reading, have made familiar and interesting to all Europe, without being degraded by the vulgarism of ordinary life in any country. Such too are the capital subjects of scripture history, which, beside their general notoriety, become venerable by their connection with our religion.2

1 Perhaps there is no part of the Art which more truly marks the possession of genius than the choice of a subject; the superiority by which one man claims his rank in comparison with his fellows, is evinced in the developement of a higher judgment in this department. This portion of the work belongs equally to the Poet and the Painter, and is amenable neither to the spur nor the curb, but guided solely by the influence of common reflection, and a knowledge of what is capable of moving the human mind. When we reflect upon the total want of judgment often shown in selecting the various subjects for painting, and especially in the English School, we are struck with the necessity of a Painter having not only a knowledge of the méchanique, but a knowledge also of what is interesting and proper for his purpose. There are many subjects too trifling, many too intricate, many too unchaste for the uncovered exhibition on the canvass, yet, nevertheless, do well enough in the unembodied recesses of language; a poet may dwell in ambiguity, but it is necessary for a painter to be clear; a silly or indecent book may be laid on the shelf, but a picture is always present under every circumstance.

2 Most subjects of general interest have already been painted, especially those more particularly adapted for the pencil, viz., those possessing the strong features of action, and expression; it necessarily follows, that an artist for the purpose of giving a new feature to the design, or an air of originality, is obliged more or less to go into particulars, and these particulars are the only characteristic points upon which the originality of the invention depends; since each succeeding artist embodies in the work, those circumstances which give him an opportunity of developing his own peculiar forte, and also enable him to render it in accordance with the general taste of his own times: for example, let us take the subject of the Crucifixion, a subject which has employed the talents of all the great painters since the revival of the Art.