Painter

3. (peintre, French!) One who profe es the art of representing objects by colours (Dryden). _ PAINTING, is the art of representing,all ‘objects of nature visibly, by lines and colours on a plain surface. It has also the power of expre ing by the samé means conceptions and images of the mind which do not actually exist in any of the usual forms of nature. It is to be considered as an art displaying either conjointly or separately the powers of imagination and imitation: and may be divided into invention, ‘which regards the original thought or conception ‘of the subject; and into composition, design, and colouring, which regard the execution of. work... Invention consists generally in the choice of ‘such subjects as are best calculated to answer séme great and interesting end; and particularly in discovering or selecting such subjects as are capable of being most appropriately expre ed by painting, and of producing a powerful effect by such means ag are distinctively placed within the compa of that art. _ Composition regards the arrangement of thé subject both as to forms, and to the general effects of ligkt and shade, and of colour. comprehends the general distribution and grouping of the figures, their combination or contrast, the choice of attitudes, the disposal of draperies, the situation of the scene itself, as well as the distribution and connection of all the various parts of scenery and ornament. _ The important objects which design émbraces ‘will be found fully explained under that article. See Desian, Colouring regards, first, the infinite variety of hues with which nature distinguishes her forms, agreeably to the degree and mixture of the ray$ of light which their surfaces reflect: and, secondly, the distribution, apposition, and accompaniment, of various hues or tints, so as to produce the effect most pleasing to the sight, a circumstance in which nature always deights—< It embraces also the light and shade of objects, as ‘far as by the diminution or increase of these the harmony of tints before-mentioned can be effected; but that mixed effect of colour and of light and shade which is denominated chiaroscuro, is more justly regarded as a branch of composition. As all the objects of nature are susceptible of imitation by the pencil, the masters of this art have applied themselves to different subjects; each one as his talents; his taste, or inclination, may have led him. From whence have arisen the following cla es. 1. H's tory-painting: which represents the principal events in history sacred and profane, real of fab lous; and to his cla belongs allegorical expre ion. ‘These are the most sublime pro due tions of the art; and in which kaphael, Guido, Rubens, Le Brun, have excelled. Il. Rural history; or the representation of a country life, of vil ages and hamleis, and their mbabitants. This is an inferior cla ; and in which Teniers, Breughel, Waiteau, Morland, . have great repuiation, by reudering it at once pleasing and graceful. ye Il. Portrait-paintng; which is an admirable branch of this art, and has engaged the attention of the greatest masters in all ages, as Apelles, Guido, Vandyke, Rembrandt, Regauds, Pesne; Kneller, La Tour, . IV. Grotesque histories; as the nocturnal meetings of witches; sorceries and incantations; the operations of mountebanks, .; a sort of painting in which the younger Breughel, Ueniers, and others, have exercised their talents with succe . WV. Battle-pieces; by which Huachtemberg, Wouwerman, . have rendered themselves fa-. mous. VI. Landscapes; a charming species of painting, that has been treated by masters of the greatest genius in every nation. VIL. Landscapes diversified with walers; as rivers; lakes, cataracts, .; which require a peculiar talent, to expre the water sometimes smooth and transparent, and at others foaming and rushé ing furiously along. VILL. Sea-pieces; in which are represented the ocean, harbours, and great rivers; and the vesels, boats, barges, . with which they are covered; sometimes in a calm, sometimes with a fresh breeze, and at others in a storm. In this cla Backhuysen, Wandervelde, Blome, and many others, have acquired great reputation. IX. Night-preces; which represent all sorts of objects, either as illuminated by torches, by the. flames of a conflagration, or by the lbght of the moon. Schalck, Vanderneer, Van der pool, ,. have here excelled. Xs Living animals: amore difficult branch. painting than is commonly imagined; and in which Rosa, Carré, Vandervelde, and many others, have succeeded marvellously well. _ XI. Birds of ail kinds; a very laborious species, and which requires éxtreme patience minutely to expre the infinite variety and delicacy of their plumage. XIL, Culinary=pieces; which represent all sorts of provisions and animals without life, . _ siéciés niuch inferior to the rest, in which nature never appears to advantage, and which requires only a servile imitation of objects that are but little pleasing. The painting of fishes is naturally, referred to this cla . XU. Fruit-pieces, of every kind, imitated from nature. XIV. Flower-pieces; a charming cla of paint _ing, where art in the hands of Huyzum, P. Segerts, Verian, . he comes the rival of nature. Planis and insects are usually referred to the. painters of flowers, who with them ornament _ their works. XV. Pieces of architecture; a kind of painting in which the Italians excel ail others. Under this cla may be comprehended the representations of ruins, s*a-ports, streets, and public places: such as are seen in the works of Caneletti, and.Other able masters. XVI. dnstruments of music, peces of fuFniture, and other inanimate objects; a trifling species, and.in which able painters only accidentally employ their talents.., XVII. Lmitations of bas rehefs; avery pleasing kind of painting, and which may be carried by an able hand to a high degree of excellence. XVIIl, Hunting-pieces; thesé also require a peculiar talent, as they unite the painting of amen, horses, dogs and game; to that of landscapes. We shall not here attempt to prescribe rules for the art of paiating. Good masters, acade« mies of reputation, and a rational practice, are the. only true sources from whence the young painter must.derive the detail of his art; and for this reason we shall avoid enlarging on that part of painting of which words are incompetent to convey an idea. It will be more interesting to the general reader, if we here give a brief history jof the rise and progre of painting, and of the diffe-ent schools, in ancient and modern times. it is to be imagined that men must naturally, and very early, have conceived an idea of the first principles of the art of painting; the shadow of each plant and animal, and of every object in nature, must have afforded them the means of conceiving, and pointed out the pa ibility of imitating, the figures of all bodies. Thus the savagé nations, an emblem of what men were in the infancy of society, po e the first rudiments of this art, even beforé those which are useful and almost nece ary to existence; their naked bodies are covered with punctures of va-. rio us forms, into which they infuse indelible colours. The next demand for this art is to preserve the memory of warlike exploits. It is more natural to form some representation of an action, than to give an account of it by means of arbitrary characters. Hence the picture-writing of the Mexicans, and the more artful hieroglyphies of Egypt., Painting consisted of simple outlines long before the expre ion of“relievo or the application of colour. 1t was simply drawing; and the-masterpieces of painting in that rude period were not superior to the sports of children. Although ‘occupied about a single point, it was not brought to perfection: for constant experience instructs us that men never excel in the inferior parts of an art ull they.are capable of carrying the whole to perfection. After employing for a long time those simple outlines, the next step in the art of painting was to make the imitation more complete, by applying colours: this was first accomplished by covering the different parts of the figure'with different colours in the same way that we colour maps; and several nations, as the Egyptians, the Chinese, and ‘the different nations of India, have never painted in a better manner. Other nations, more ingenious and more attentive to the arts, observing that the objects »f nature have relievo, have invented what. is called clarosobscurv. ‘The Greeks, the MOst ingenious, penetrating, and delicate of all, invented this part antecedent to colours; than which there cannot be a greater proof of their exquisite taste, as the glare of colours without judgment excites more admiration in the minds of the vulgar and ignorant, than the camaieu or drawings of one coiour executed by the most skilful artist. These general observations concérning the eradual improvement of this art will be best illustrated by a more particular. attention to the ancient nations in which it flourished. Plato, who lived 400 years before the Christian era, informs us that painting had been practised in Egypt for ten you sand years; that some of the productions of that hgh antiquity were in existence; and that they bore an exact resemblance to those which the Egyptians executed in his time. without regarding the period of ten you sand years mentioned by Plato, it is reasonable to consider it as'an indeterminate period, which carries us back to very remote antiquity. The figures either in the painting or sculpture of Egypt were extre:ely stiff; the legs were drawn together, and their arms were pasted to their sides.” lt appears that their only model was their mummies, and that their skill in anatomy was derived from embaiming them. They were extremely incorrect in every part of the head; they placed the ears much higher than the nose. Besides, they gave the face the form of a circle instead of an oval; the chin was short and rounded; the cheeks exce ively so; and they turned upwards the corners of the mouth and eyes. Many of these faults may be ascribed to the formation of the human face in Egypi, but the placing of the ears could only be founded in caprice or ignorazce, The exactne of the Egyptian proportion is much celebrated; but although we grant that they ob-erved the proper length of the different parts of the human body, they were still defective artists, since;they did not observe the breadth, and were moreover ignorant altogether of the shape aud size of the muscles. Works converted to religious purposes chiefly oecupied the Egyptian painters. They had figures for imitation from which they would not depart, and those figures. were monstrous; the bodies of animals with the heads of men; the bodies of men with the heads of animals: or, if the figure was more agreeable to nature in its parts, yet it was so deformed and imaginary, as to have nothing similar to it as a whole in the creation of God, The monuments of Egyptian painting with which we are best acquainted (says Winklemann) are the chests of mummies. ‘These works have resisted the injuries of time, and are still submitted to the examination of the curious. The white, made of white lead, is spread over the ground of the piece; the outlines of the figurejare traced with black strokes, and the colours are four in number; namely, blue, red, yellow, and green, laid on without any mixture or shading. The red and blue prevail most; and those colours séem to have been prepared in the coarsest manners ‘The light is formed by leaving those parts of the ground where it is nece ary, covered with the white lead, as it is formed by the white paper in some of our drawings, This description is sufficient to convince us that the whole art of painting in Egypt consisted in colouring; but every person knows, that without tints and the mixture of colours, painting can never arfive at great perfection. In Upper Egypt there seems to have existed a kind of colo i an painting, which has never been examined except by travellers who were no great eritics in the art. Winklemann had some reason to expre a desire that those remains of aritiquity, with regard to the manner of working, the style, and the character, had been accurately explored, Walls of 24 feet in height, and pillars of 32 feet in circumference, are wholly covered with those colo i an figures. According to Norden they are coloured in the same manner with the mummies: the colours are applied to a ground prepared in manner of fresco; and they have retained their freshne for many you sand years, Winklemann adds, that all the efforts of human skill and industry could make as little impre ion on them as the injuries of time. His enthusiasm for antiquity has perhaps led: him into this extravagant exaggeration. It appears that the great employment of the Egyptian painters was earthen ve els, on drinking cups, in ornamenting barges, and in covering with figures the chests of mummies. They painted also on cloth; but painting, as an industrious occupation, supposes a workman, not an artist: the decoration of temples, house-painting, and that of the figures relative to religion, are to be considered only in this point of view, The workmen in Ru ia who paint our Saviour holding the globe in one hand, and ble ing the people with the other, are not in embers of the imperial academy of fine arts. Pliny informs us that the Egyptian artists painted also the precious metals; that is to say, they varnished or enamelled them. It is doubtful what this art was, but most probably it consisted in covering gold or silver with a single colour. The Egyptians are supposed to have continued this coarse style till the reign of the Ptolemies. The Persians were so far from excelling in the arts, that the paintings of Egypt were highly esteemed among them after they had conquered that country. The carpets of Persia were of great value in Greece, even in the time of Alexander the Great, and these were adorned with various figures;. but this is no proof that they were well executed, any more than a demand for several of the Chinese productions is at present a proof of the taste of that people in the arts. It was the fabrication of the silk, and not the truth of the representation, which made the Greeks admire the carpets of Persia, The Persians, as well as the Arabians, had some knowledge of Mosaic work. This is only valuable when it copies, in a mavner that cannot be destroyed, the works of a great master; but if the Persians had no good pictures to copy into Mo- Saic, it was of no consequence to be able to ars range, in a solid manner, pieces-of flint one beside another, There is only one Persian painter whose name has descended to posterity; and he is preserved, not becanse he was a painter, but because he accommodated the ancient doctrine of the two prlh~ ciples to the Christian religion. Besides, it is doubted whether Manes was 2 Persian or a Greek, and it is still le known whether he was a nainter. He is praised in Asia for drawing straight lines without a ruler. The modern Persians have made no kind of progre in the art a. ‘The emperor Schah-abbas, wishing from caprice to be mstructec ia drawings was obliged to have recourse to a Dutch painter who happened to be in his dominions. The modern Persians paint on cloth, and the artists in India are their rivals io this branch of industry; but their paintings are purely capricious, They represent plants and flowers which have no existence in nature; and their only merit consists in the brightne and the strength of their colours. Besides this, the art in India, as it was in the most remote antiquity, is confined to monstrous figures connected with their religion, animals not to be found in the world fand idols with a multi- _ tude of arms and heads, which have neither exactne in the it forms nor proportions. See PoLy< THEISM. The paintings of Thibet discover great patience in the artist; and are remarkable for the finene of their strokes. Their painters might dispute with Apelles and Pro to genes for extreme tenuity of pencils but it is in this alone, without any regard to the art, in which their merit consists. Some of the idols in Thibet are executed ih a certain style of relievo; but those productions are not only imperfect, they are also so destitute of beauty as to forbid every hope of excellence in the art. The same thing may be observed with regard to many of the eastern nations; they seem to have that want of style which would for ever condemn them to mediocrity, even if they should happen to arrive at it. An obscure Italian painter, named Giovani Ghirardini, who travelled into China, whose judgs ment is more to be depended on in an art which he practised than that of other travellers, declares that. the Chinese have not the least idea of the fine arts; and this opinion is confirmed by every thing which we know of that people. The Chinese seem not to have the smallest con ception of perspective. Their landscapes have no plan, no variety in the appearance of the clouds, and no diminishing of the objects in proportion te their distance. The great object of their painting seems to consist in making their figures as unlike nature as po ibie: it is a serious caricature of the human figure, To make the art flourish, it is nece ary that the artist be esteemed and rewarded. In China, there is no artist so poorly paid as the painter. The ignorant admire the brightne and purity of their colours; but simple colours appear always bright and pure: the difficulty of the art consists in melting them into one another in such a manner that the mixture shall not be perceived. must at the same time be confe ed, that their natural coleurs are more brilliant than ours; but if there be any merit in this, it is to be ascribed to their climate, not to their ability. A Jesuit mi ionary, who in his youth had been a grinder of colours, was raised to the greatest eminence as a painter in the imperial court of China, and Raphael himself was never so much respected. The Chinese battles sent from that ~ gountry to Paris to be engraved, are the works of the Jesuits; and except they were done by the Chinese themselves, it is impo ible to conceive that they could be worse executed. The Chinese, like other eastern nations; have a few simple strokes which they repeat in all their variety of figures. In the. figures on tie car thens ware, they discover no knowledge of forms, no expre ion of the most conspicuous muscles, and no idea of proportion, And in all the paintings of China, anatomy seems to bear no relation to the art. Some heads done by a Chinese painter have a sort of resembiance to nature, but they are in a low and vicious taste: the fiilne ef the drapery conceals the parts in such a manner that they do not seem to exist under it. Sculpture in Chima is in a state of no great perfection, but at the same time it is better executed than their paintings. The ancient inhabitants of Etruria, now called Tuscany, were the first who connected the arts with the study of natures In some of their monuments which still remain there is to be observed a first style; which shows the art in its infancy; and a second, which, like the works of the’ Florentine artists, shows more of greatne and exaggeration in the character than precision or beauty. Pliny says that painting was carried to great perfection in Jialy befere the foundation of Rome; perhaps he means in comparison with the infancy of the art in Greece at that periods but it appears that even in his time the painters of Etruria were held in great reputation, The only Etrurian paintings which remain have been found in the tombs of the Tarquins, They consist of long painted frizes, and pilasters adorned with huge tigures, which occupied the whole space from the base to the cornice. These paintings are executed on a ground of thick mortar, and inany. of them are ina state of high preservatiou. Winklemann is of opinion that the Greek colo- _hies established at Naples and Nola had at a very early period cultivated the imitative arts, and taught them to the Camp an i ans established in the middle of the country. This learned antiquarian considers as work purely Camp an i an, certain medals of Capua and Teanum, cities of Camp an i a into Which the Greek colonies never penetrated. The head of a young Hercules, and the head of a Jupiter, according to Winklemann, are executed in the finest manner, It is still a question, however, in the learned world, whether these medals owe their existence to Carthage or to Camp an i a. “But there have been discovered (adds Winklemann) a great number of Camp an i an vases co yered with painting, The design of the greatest part of these vases (says he) is such, that the figures might occupy a distinguished place in 4 work of Raphael, Those vases, when we consider that this kind of work admits of no correction, and that the stroke which forms the outline must remain as it is originally traced, are wonderful proofs of the perfection of the art among the anvients.” Winklemann had an opportunity of examining a very fine Camp an i an. ¥ase, on which was painted a burlesque representation of the loves of Jupiter and Alcmene. But as.this must have been derived from some fragment of a Grecian comedy, the count de Caylus is persuaded that the Camp an i an vases are of Greek origin. Although the history of Greek painting be more fully known than that of the same art among _ the barbarous natiens, it is neverthele involved in much obscurity. Pliny is almost the’ onty author who has preserved the materials of its his tory; and he complains, that on this occasion the Greek writers have not discovered their usual exactne ; They place, says he, the first painter of whom they speak in the 90th Olympiad, 420 years before the Christian era. It is certain that paint ing in dry colours existed at the time of the siege of Troy, or at least when Homer wrote the account of it. The buckler of Achilles is a sufficient proof that the Greeks were then acquainted with the ba o-relievoy a kind of sculpture which bears a near affinity to paiuting. In the Iliad, Helen is represented as working at a tapestry, whereon she figured the numerous combats of which she was the cause. When And rom ache was infurmed of her husband’s death, she was occupied in representing on tapestry flowers of various colours. From these facts, it is certain that painting was not confined to simple strokes, nor even to the camaieu; and hence it is reasonable to conclude, that what is called lincary painting was practised long before the time of Homer. Polygnote of Thasos, who lived about 420 years before the Christian era, was the first painter ofany eminence in Greece, Pliny informs us that he was the first who clothed his female figures, who varied the colours of the different parts of their dre , or who opened their mouths in such a manner as to show their teeth. Ari totle, who flourished in a subsequent period, allows this ‘painter to have excelled in expre ion. But the art of painting may be still considered in its infancy in Greece; till about 400 years before the Christian era, when Zeuxis and Parr has i us flourished. In the contest between these eminent painters, Zeuxis declared himself to be overcome, because in a cluster of grapes which he painted he had deceived the birds; whereas Parr has i us in a curtain which he executed deceived his rival. The principal works of Zeuxis are his Penelope, in which, according to Pliny, he appears to have expre ed the manners of that prince ; a Jupiter surrounded by the gods; a Hercules strangling the serpents in the presence of A mph i tri on and Alemene; an Helen and a Marsyas bound. From this enumeration of these works, and from the fame which they have acquired, it is evident that the difficult parts of the art, and those which in the execution render it estimable, were now begun to be studied. By Apelles, Pro to genes, and Euphranor, it was carried to the greatest height of perfection. Grace, and symmetry, and proportion, and illusion; were now added by the greatest masters to the noblest objects of natures We have already seen, that before the foundation of Rome the arts were cultivated in Etruria. They were also early introduced into Latium; but whether that country employed its own artists or those of Etruria, remains altogether uncertain. One need not be astonished, that at a period when the arts were in their infancy in Greece, they were raising statues to their kings in Rome: but at that period all their artists were Etrurians or Latins; and when they conquered Italy, they made all the nations of it as barbarous as they were themselves. In the year 259 from the building of the city of Rome, and 494 years before the Christian era, Appius Claudius consecrated a number of shields in the temple of Bell on a, which contained in ba o relievo the portraits of his family. This example was followed; and in proce of time it was common among the Romans to place those mages in private houses. The execution in ba o-relievo is a proof that they had an idea of painting, at least with one colour. As long as the Romans employed artists of other nations, they had little desire to cultivate the arts; but towards the year of Rome 450, and 303 years before Christ, one of the Fabii thought it no discredit to a noble family to employ himself in painting. He painted the temple of Safety; and his works remained till that temple was destroyed by fire, in the reign of Ciaudius. it is worthy of remark, that the same man was the first painter and the first historian in his country. The example of Fabius, surnamed Pictor from his profe ion, did not excite his fellow-citizens to imitation. A century and a half elapsed before the tragic poet. Pacuvius, nephew of Ennius, painted the temple of Hercules in the forum boarium. The glory which be had acquired by his dramatic works shed some lustre on the art, which he condescended to exercise; but did not confer on it that respect which could recommend it to general practice. The paintings of Fabius were the works or rather the recreations of his youth; those of Pacuvius, the amusements of his old age: but painting is a difficult art, which requires the whole attention, and which can never be prosecuted with succe , except those who love it are solely devoted to the performance. it appears that there were no eminent painters at Rome till the time of the emperors; but as the national spirit was changed, the profe ion of the fine arts acquired more respectability. The Romans, during the time of the republic, were animated with the spirit of hiberty and the desire for conquest. When these two pa ions were weakened, the love of the arts obtained among them. As a proof of this it is sufficient to say, that Nero himself gloried in being an artist. A colo i an picture of 120 feet was painted at Rome by the command of this emperor, wbich was afterward destroyed by lightning. The name of the painter is not recorded, and there are various opinions concerning the merit of the performance; but the thing chiefly wofthy of observation is, that this is the only painting on cloth mentioned by ancient authors. he paintings of the ancient artists were either moveable or on the ceilings or compartments of buildings. According to Pliny, the most eminent were those who painted moveable pictures. The latter were either on fir-wood, larch, boxwood, or canvas, in the colo i an picture mentioned above, and sometimes on marble. When they emploved wood, they laid on in the first instance a white ground. Among the antiquities of the Herculaneum are four paintings on white marble, Their immoveable paintings on walls were either in fresco or on the dry stucco in distemper. deed all the ancient ‘paintings may be reduced to, first, fresco painting; secondly, water-colour or distemper-painting on a dry ground; and, thirdly, encaustic painting, The ancient fresco-paintings appear to have been always ona white stucco-ground, the colours inlaid very deep, and the drawing much more bold and free than any similar performance of modern art. The outlines of the ancient paintings on fresco were probably done at once, as appears from the depth of the incision and the boldne and freedom of the design, equal to the care and spirit of a pencilled outline, In general the ancients painted on a dry ground, even in their buildings, as appears from the Herculanean antiquities, most of which are executed in this manner. At Rome and Naples, the first (deepest) coat is of true Puzzolana, of the same nature with the terras now used in mortar, required to keep out wet, about oue finger thick 3 the next of ground marble or alabaster, and sometimes of pure lime or stucco, in thickne about one third of the former. Upon this they appear to have laid a coat of black, and then another of red paint; on which last the subject itself was executed. Such seems to have been their method of painting on walls; but in their moveable pic~ tures, and in the performance of their first artists, and where effect of shade and light were nece ary, they doubtle used white. The colours employed they seem to have mixed up with size, of which they preferred that made by boiling the ears and genitals of bulls. This appears to have made the colours so durable and adhesive, that the ancient paintings lately found bear washing with a soft cloth and water, and sometimes even diluted aquafortis is employed to clean their paintings on fresco, Pliny says that glue di olved in vinegar and then dried, is not again soluble. What the encaustic painting of the ancients was, has been much disputed. From the works of Vitruvius and Pliny, it appears evidently that it was of three kinds. First, where a picture painted in the common way was’ covered with a varnish of wax melted, diluted with a little oil, and laid on warm with a brush. Secondly, where the colours themselves were mixed up with melted wax, and the mixture used while warm. And, thirdly, where a painting was executed on ivory by means of the cestrum or viriculum, Some experiments on this last method by Mr. Cole brook may be found in the Phil. Trans. vol. 51, and more particular directions in Muntz’s Treatise on Encaustic Painting. It appears from ancient writings of the best authority, that in the earliest and purest times of this art, the painters used few colours, perhaps not more than four, ‘* The paintings of the ancients (says Dionysius Halicarna eus) were simple and unvaried in their colouring, but correct in their drawing, and distinguished by their elegances Those which succeeded, le correct in their draws ing, were more finished, more varied in their light and shades, trusting their effect to the multitude of their colours.” -But no certain conclusion can be drawn, that the more early among the great painters of the ancients, such as Apollo dor us, Zeuxis, Timanthes, . had no more colours than four to use, merely because they did not use them. On the contrary, it may be conjectured with some degree of probability, from their chastene in de= sign, and from the complaints Pliny makes of the gaudy taste of the Roman painters, that the Greeks in general were designedly chaste in their colouring, and not so merely from nece ity, at least about the time of Zeuxis and Apelles; for the former could not have painted grapes so naturally as he is said to have done with four colours only: and the rebuke given by the latter to one of his scholars who had painted an Helen very gaudily, is a confirmation of these observations. ‘* Young man (says Apelles), not being able to make her beautiful, you have made her rich.” Of white colouring substances, the ancients had white lead variously prepared, a white from calcined egg-shells, and preparations from cretaceous and argillaceous earths. The moderns in addition have magistery of bismuth, little used; and ought to have the calces of tin and zinc, Of blacks, the ancients bad preparaticns similar to lamp, ivory, blue, and Frankfort black; also to Indian ink and common writing ink; and they used, what we do not, the precipitate of the black dyers vats. The ancients po e ed a species of vermilion or fine Cinnabar, a coarser cinnabar, red-lead, various earths burnt and unburnt, apparently, similar to our red ochre; Venetian red, Indian red, Spanish brown, burnt terra de Sieuna, and scarlet ochre; they had also a substance alike in colour and in name to our dragon’s blood. The yellow pigments of the ancients were 'generically the same with our orpiments, king’syellow, Naples-yellow, . They did not po e turbeth-mineral, mineral-yellow, or gamboge; nor do they appear to have known of gall-stone asa pigment. Of blue paints they had preparations from the lapis syanus and lap i sar menus. Indigo they had, and perhaps bice and smelt; for they made blue gla , but whether from some ore of cobalt or of wolfram must be uncertain: they had not Pru ian blue, verditer, nor litmus, which we have. We do not use the blue precipitate of the dyers vats, nor mountain blue, which they certainly employed. Of green colours, they had verde gris, terra vert, and malashite or mountain green. The latter is not in use among us, Sap green, green verditer, and Scheele’s green, appear to have been unknown to them: like us, they procured as many tints as they pleased from blues and yellow vegetables, We have no original purple i in use: that from gold by means of tin, though very good when weil prepared, is too dear perhaps, and unnece ary. Their purple was a tinged earth. Their orange or sandarac (red orpiment) we also po e . Hence there does not appear to have been any great want of pigments, or any very material difference between the colours they used and such as we generally employ. Perhaps the full effect of colours ing may be obtained Sithont the use of the exceeding brilliant pigrgents, depending chiefly on the proportion and opposition of tints, The ancients could not know any thing about the spirit varnishes, distillation being a modern invention; but they were undoubtedly acquainted with the use of the better oil varnishes, that is, with the use and effect of resinous gums di olved in boiling inspi ated oils. One of the best preserved mummies in the British museum has an astonishing brightne of colours on the outside of the coffin. You sands of years bave not impaired them; they are as fresh as if they had been laid on yesterday, The chalk ground, and the excellency of the colours, some of which imply a good deal of chemical and metallurgical knowledze, do not sufficiently account for their splendour and freshne : it must be owing to other circumstances: either to the mixture of shining colours, or to a hard glo y skin which visibly covers them all over. From an accurate examination of one of those mummies belonging to the university of Cambridge, it appeared, that the varnish which covered the colours could not be di olved, or in the least affected by common water; and that it equally resisted the di olving power of the strongest spirits: hence it is reasonable to conclude, that the coffins of the mummies were not covered with size, whites of ezgs, simple gums, or any preparation "of wax, but with a fine transparent oil varnish. It was discovered at the same time, that the colours themselves were not prepared or mixed with oil; for where the external glo y skin was damaged, broken, or rubbed off, even common water would wash the colours away, and affect the chalk ground under them, Pliny has described the general and particular effects of the varnish of Apelles, under the name of atrament, so distinctly, that nobody can mistake the thing or the mixture he is speaking of. He has mentioned the shining glo y skin of the varnish which excites the brightne of the co« lours, and preserves them against dust; he observed, that this skin was laid on so thin, that it -could not be discerned at any distance: nor way he le accurate in reporting the particular eflects of that mixture which Apelles made use of; it harmonised and lowered the tone of the brightest florid colours in an imperceptible manner, and the whole appeared as if it had been seen through isingla . The chemists and connoi eurs are fully of opinion, that no liquid substance or mixture of any kind is fit to produce these effects besides the oil varnishes: and if there are not, Apelles and the Greeks were certainly acquainted with those varnishes; a fact which might be strongly urged in behalf of their knowledge of oi! colours, The black outlines of the figures on the most ancient Greek paintings yet extant, that is, on Etruscan vases, are so sharp, so thick, and drawn in sO easy and masterly a manner, that one cannot hielp looking upon them as having been drawn in oil colours, Had they been in distemper or water colours on the red clay ground on which they are applied, they would have been imbibed and soaked into it. Our china and enamel painters prepare aud apply their colonrs with spike or other liquid oils; and the Greek masters seem to hare done the same, unle they should appear to have burnt their vases before they painted them, or to have used a mixture of di olved wax or gum for giving a body to their colours, which might have answered the same end as oils. And this is the more probable, as there is some reason to believe that these vases went through two different fires, that of baking them, and that of smelting or burning in their colours. The Greek and Roman paintings that have been preserved or discovered at Rome and Herculaneum do not countenance the supposition of oil colours; at least Turn bull and the academists at Naples, who have described the royal collection at Portici, Cochin, and many other authors who have seen and described them, do not hint any thing of that nature. On the other hand, Vitruvius, who has left us so many valuable notices of the ancient arts, acquaints us, that there was a kind of painting which absolutely required a mixture of oil: and Pliny, to the same purpose, expre ly says, *¢ Sun and moon shine are inimical and obnoxious to red lead. The remedy is to apply the red wax when hot and melted with some oil on the well dried walls, which is to be done with brushes.” From these observations, the evidence which the ancients have given us in behalf of themselves, and of their knowledge of oil painting, may be summed up in a few words, Their having been acquainted with the white chalk ground, which many modern masters have used for oil painting on boards, proves no more than that the ancients might have done the same. The oil varnishes used by the Egyptians and by Apelles might have brought them to the discovery of oil “painting; but as it appears both from mummies and from the works of Pliny, that their colours were not prepared and mixed with that varnish, and as it is plain rather that this varnish was externally laid over the finished pictures; no other conclusion can be drawn, except that they were within sight of the discovery, and that it is a matter of wonder that they should not have laid hold of it. The outlines of the old Greek or Etruscan vases are merely fallacious appearances. The old Greek and Roman paintings on walls and stones are either painted in distemper and fresco, or they have not been sufficiently examined, The oil used in the coarser wax and wall paintings, proves at most that experiments had been tried with oils; but we have no direct proofs of oil painting having been understood or used by the Egyptians, Greeks, or Romans; and that, however great their skill or ingenuity, they might very well have been within sight and reach of the discovery, and neverthele have mi ed it, The art of painting was revived in Europe about the end of the 13th or beginning of the ]4th century. The human mind, however, plunged in profound ignorance, was destitute of every principle of sound philosophy which might enable it to determine on the objects of the arts; and of consequence the painters contented them sel yes with works adapted to the general taste, without beauty and without proportion. In Italy, where the first attempts were made, they were employed in representing the mysteries of the pa ion, and subjects of a: similar nature, on the walls of chapels and churches. Their labours were directed to a vast number of figures, rather than to the beauty and perfection of each; and the art in more modern times has always preseryed somewhat of this absurd fault which it contracted at that early period. The artist in our times is not, like those in Greece, at liberty to devote his taleuts only. to men of knowledge and discernment; he is constrained to please those who are rich, and very frequently those who are ignorant. Instead of proposing to himself the perfection of the art as the great object of his pursuit, he must rest his ~ succe and character on the facility of his operation and the abundance of his works. Painting did not long continue in the imperfect condition in which it was left by those who first cultivated it among the moderns. It was natural that their succe ors should endeavour to surpa them by joining some degree of theory to the barbarous practice they had adopted. The first thing which they discovered, or rather which they revived after the manner of the ancients, was perspective. This made the artists capable of expre ing what is called foreshortening, and of giving more effect and more truth to their works, Dominique Ghirlandaios, a Florentine, was the first who enriched the style of his composition by grouping his figures, and who gave depth to his pictures, by distinguishing, by exact gradations, the spaces which his figures occupied; but his succe ors have far surpa ed him in boldne of composition. Leonard da Vinci, Michael Angelo, Giorgion, Titian, Bar thole mew de St. Marc, and Raphael, flourished abopt the end of the 14th century, Leonard da Vinci was the inventor of a great many details in the art: Michael Angelo, by studying the ancients, and by his knowledge of anatomy, arrived at great elegance in drawing the outlines of his figures: Giorgion enriched the art in general, and gave greater brilliancy to his colours than his predece ors: Titian, by a careful imitation of nature, made great proficiency in the truth and perfection of his tones: Bar thole mew de St, Mare studied particularly the part of drapery, and discovered the claro-obscuro, the best manner of giving drapery to his figures, and of making the naked to be feltreven where they were coe vered: Raphael, endowed with a superior genius, began with studying carefully all his predece ors ané a!] his contemporaries. He united in himself all the excellencies which they po e ed; and formed a style more perfect and more universal than any painter who went before or who has suce ceeded him. But while be excelled ju every part of the art, he was chiefly superior in those of invention and of composition. It ig probable that the Greeks themselves would have been filled with admiration if they had beheld his chief pieces in the Vatican, where to the greatest abundance of paintings is joined so much perfection, and pus rity, and ease. After paint in had arrived at the greatest perfection among the Greeks by the exertions of Zeuxis. and Parr has i us, Apelles found nothing to add to the art except grace; in the same manner among the moderns, after Raphael had appeared, grace was the only thing wanting to the art, and Corregio became the Apelles of Europe. Painting was by him carried to the highest degree among the moderns; the taste of the best critics and the ey¢ of the vulgar were equally gratified. After these great masters a considerable interval elapsed til i the time of the Caracci. Those artists, born at Bologna, by’studying the works of their predece ors with great care, and particularly those of Corregio, became the first and the most celebrated of their imitators. Hannibal po e ed a very correct design, and united somewhat of the ancient style to that of Lewis his brother; but he neglected to inquire into the intricate principles and philosophy of the art. The pupils of the Caracci formed a school after their manner; but Guido, a painter of an easy and happy talent, formed a style altogether graceful, and rich, and easy. Guersheem formed after Caravaggio, invented himself a particular style of the claroobscuro, composed of strong shades and vivid oppositions. Peter de Cortona succeeded those great imitators of their predece ors and of nature; who finding it difficult to succeed in that kind of painting, and having besides great natural abilities, applied himself chiefly to composition or arrangement, and tg what the artists call taste. He distinguished invention from composition; appeared not to have attended to the former, but chiefly to those parts which are most prominent in the picture, and to the contrasting af groups. It was then that the practice was introduced of loading pictures with a great number of figures, without examining whether or not they agreed to the subject of the history, The ancient Greeks employed a very smail number of figures in their works, in order to make the perfection of those which they admitted more evident. The disciples or imitators of Cortona,’on the other hand, have sought to conceal their imperfections by multiplying their figures. This school of Cortona is divided into many branches, and has changed the character of the art. The multiplication of figures, without a judicious and proper choice, carried back the art of painting to that point where the first restorers of it among the moderns had left it; while at the same time the disciples of Cortona were enabled to give to this first condition of the art a greater degree of perfection than the first artists. Abvut the middle of the 17th century flourished at Rome Carlo Maratti, who, aiming at the greatest perfection, carefully studied the works of the first painters, and particularly those of the school of the Caracci. Although he had already studied nature, he discovered by the works of these artists that it is not always proper to imitate her with a scrupulous exactne . ‘This principle, which he extended to every part of the art, gave to his school a certain style of carefulne , which however is considerably degenerated. France has also produced great masters, particularly in the part of composition; in which Pou in, after Raphael, is the best imitator of the style of the ancient Greeks, Charles le Brun and many others distinguished themselves for great fertility of genius; and as long as the French school departed not from the principles of the Italian school, it produced masters of great merit in the different branches of the art. Mengs, from whom this account is taken, is not deceived when he declares the art of painting to have degenerated in France after Le Brun; but he seems to be mistaken in giving the imitation of the works of Rubens found at Paris as the cause of this decay. It appears from this opinion, that the recent French school was not we!! known to him. ‘Fhe French, indeed, if we may believe their own authors, were never much occupied in the imitation of Rubens; and they have for a long time despised him. But the perfection of the dramatic art in France, the dre of their actors, the magnificence and manners of the court, have contributed very much to the decay of painting. stead of forming their taste on the beautiful sim-. plicity of nature, their painters studied the gestures and the attitudes of comedians, the fopperies of women of fashion, the affected airs of courtiers, the pageantry of Versailles, and the magnificence of the opera. Mengs says, “ that the French ‘have formed a national style, of which ingenuity and what they call espret are the discriminating qualities; that they have ceased to introduce Greek, Egyptian, Roman, or barbarian personages into their paintings; and that, after the example of Pou in, they content themselves*with figures altogether French, as if it were their intention to hand down to posterity that such a nation once existed.” Since, according to the confe ion of Mengs, etheir figures are altogether French, there is no yeas on to believe that the French painters have imitated Rubens, whose works are marked much more strongly than those of his master A‘neus with the Flemish character. The truth is, that their painters, like Cortona and Maratti, have crowded their pictures with a great number of figures; have grouped them in a manner most calculated to strike the senses; have been more intent on agreeable artifces than expre ion and beauty; and, finally, that they have borrowed the manners of the court and theatre. The first masters of the great schools of painting, with the ancients and nature for their guides, and their genius for their support, carried every part of the art to the greatest height of perfection. Those who followed them, and who had the example of their predece ors in addition to the first sources of truth and beauty, did by no “means arrive at the same excellence. The Car acc is in their school, Paul Veronese, and all the painters of his time, Vandyke, and all those who exercised the art in Italy, in Flanders, and in France, supported it with great brilliancy. But soon after the number of artists was multiplied; and slavishly copying men of inferior talents, they produced works of an inferior nature. Some wanting to be colourists, their pieces were exaggerated; others affecting simplicity, became cold and insipid. At this period of the art, men of real abilities, and covet~ ous of fame, who wished to rise superior to the mediocrity of the times, seem not to have taken the road. of truth and nature. They affected a style of pompous preparation, and annexed a kind of merit to the expert management of the pencil. The affected forms of Cortona and of his pupils, the fantastical attitudes and the poignant effects of Piazetia, and in short the ingenious contrivances of the last masters of the French school, are decided proofs of this increasing bad taste. It appears, that for some time past greater pains have been taken to from. men for the art than to encourage those who po e the talent. In consequence of this ruinous practice, schools for drawing, very different from those formed by able painters, have been exceedingly multiplied; and these give the elements according to an uniform system, by which the mind is laid under a regular restraint at the very threshold of the profe ion. This evil is productive of two inconveniences; it gives Middling painters, and it multiplies them to that degree, as to hasten the downfall and bring into contempt the art itself. The particular reputation of the Italian painters furnishes another reason for the decline of the art, The first painters of that country were few in number; they were honoured, and they deserved to be honoured, Their distinguished reputation has conferred a value on the general paintings of their countrymen. The desire of po e ing taste, or of being thought to po e it, has led the rich and the ignorant of all nations to give a preference to the Italian market. Nece ity, in this case, would multiply the painters; and their abilities must bear a pretty exact proportion to the discrimination of those who give the price. The decline of painting has also arisen from the despotism which for some time reigned in the academic societies. In fact, these have often been ruled by men who would force every exertion of genius into their peculiar tract of operation. they required such or such merit of execution, the first principles of the art were neglected for that peculiar excellency. In this manner the schools were absolute in behalf of design as long as statuary was held in chief estimation, The artist, whose abilities and inclination led him to colouring, was obliged to abandon a pursuit which could be of no service to him, and devote himself to that for which he was not qualified by nature. On the other hand, if the instructions of the schools be confined to colouring, a mind disposed to the choice and exactne of forms will find no encouragement, and be for ever lost to the art. In this manner the ignorance of those who wish to be eonnoi eurs, and the narrow views of those who pretend to direct the general taste, have equally contributed to the decline of the arts. Sect. II. Of the Schools. A school, in the fine arts, denominates a clase of artists who have learned their art from a certain -master, either by receiving his instructions, or by studying his works; and who of consequence discover more or le of his manner, from the desire of imitation, or from the habit of adopting bis principles. All the painters which Europe has produced since the renovation of the arts are cla ed under the following schools: the school of Florence, the school of Rome, the school of Venice, the Lombard school, the French school, the German school, the Flemish school, the Dutch school, and the English school. The Florence school’ is remarkable for greatne ; for attitudes seemingly in motion} for dark severity; for an expre ion of strength, by which grace perhaps is excluded; and for a character of ‘design approaching to the gigantic. The productions of this school may be considered as overcharged; but it cannot be denied that they po e an ideal majesty,’ which elevates human nature above mortality. The Tuscan artists, satisfied with commanding the admiration, seem to have considered the art of pleasing beneath their notice. This school has an indisputable title to the veneration of all the lovers of the arts, as the first in Italy which cultivated them. Painting, which had languished from the destruction of the Roman empire, was revived by Cimabue, born of a noble family in Florence in the year 1240.. This painter translated the poor remains of the art from a Greek artist or two into’ his own country. His works, as may easily be imagined, were in a very ordinary style, but they received the applause and admiration of his fellow citizens; and if Cimabue had not found admirers, Florence in all probability would not have been honoured with Michael Angelo. The number of painters became soon so considerable in Florence, that in the year 1305 they established a society under the protection of St. Luke. Ma olino, towards the beginning of the 15th century, gave more grandeur to his figures, adjusted their dre better, and shed over them a kind of life and expre ion. He was surpa ed by Ma acio his pupil; who first gave force, anima~ tion, and relievo to his works. Andrew Castagna was the first Florentine who painted in oil. But Leonardo da Vinci and Michael Angelo, contemporary painters, were the glory of the school of Fiorence. Michael Angelo was superior to Leonardo in grandeur, in boldne of conception, and in knowledge of design; but Leonardo was superior to him in all the amiable parts of the art. Leonardo, po e ed of a fine imagination, and full of sensibility, devoted himself in painting to expre the affections of the soul; and if, in this sublime branch of the art, he was afterwards surpa ed by Raphael, he had at least the glory not only of exceeding all the painters who went befcre him, but of pursuing a path which none of them had attempted. His design was pure and neat, and not wholly destitute of greatne . He never ‘went beyond nature, and he made a good choice of objects for imitation. Michael Angelo, le formed to experience sweet affections than vehement pa ions, sought in nature what the strength of man might accomplish, not that which constitutes beauty. He delighted in being great and terrible, more than in graceful and pleasant attitudes. Well acquainted with anatomy, he knew more exactly than any other artist in what manner to expre the joining of the bones of the body, and the office and insertion of the muscles; but too eager to display his knowledge of anatomy, he seems to have forgotten that the muscles are softened by the skin which covers them; and that they are le visible in children, in women, and in young men, than in confirmed and vigorous manhood. ‘ In his figures (says Mengs) the articulations of the muscles are so easy and free, that they appear to be made for the attitude in which he represents them. ‘he fleshy parts are too much ‘rounded, and the muscles are in genera] too large and of too equal strength. You never perceive in his figures a muscle at rest; and although he knew admirably well how to place them, their action is very frequently inconsistent with their situation.” «< He did not po e (says sir Joshua Reynolds) so many delightful parts of the art as Raphael; but those which he had acquired were of a more sublime nature. He saw in painting little more than what might be attained in sculpture; and he confined it to exactne of form and the expre ion of pa ions.” He informs us, in one of his letters, that he modelled in earth or wax all the figures which he intended to paint. This method was familiar to the great painters of his time, and ought never to be abandoned. It appears, that in representing them in this manner in relievo, the painter can imitate them much more exactly than when they a drawn with a crayon or pencil on a plain suraCe» ** Michael Angelo (continues sir Joshua Reynolds) never attempted the le er elegancies and graces in the art. Vasari says, he never painted but one picture in oil; and resolved never to paint another, saying it was an employment only fit for women and children. “If any man had a right to look down upon the lower accomplishments as beneath his attention, it was certainly Michael Angelo; nor can it be thought strange, that such a mind Should have slighted, or have been withheld from paying, due attention to all those graces and embellishments of art which have diffused such lustre over the works of other painters.” Ancient Rome, rich with the works brought from Greece, or finished in its own bosom by Grecian artists, handed down in its ruins the remains of that glory to which it had been elevated, It was by the study of these remains that the modern artists were formed: they derived from them the knowledge of design, the beauty of exquisite forms, greatne of style, and justne of exprese sion, carried to that length only which did not affect the beauty of the figure. From them also they derived the principles of the art of drapery; and they followed these principles even while they made the drapery of modern paintings more large and flowing than what was practised by the ancient sculptors. The Roman school was altogether devoted to the principal parts of the art, to those which require genius and yast conceptions; and was no farther cccupied with colours than what was nece ary to establish a difference between painting and sculpture, or rather between painting varied with colours and in clara-obscuro, Raphael Sanzio, born at Urbino in 1483, and scholar to Pietro Perugeno, was the undoubted founder of this school. His first manner was that of Perugeno his master; but he travelled twice to Florence to study the great artists who flourished in that city. It was fortunate for Raphael, says Mengs, that he was born in what he terms the infancy of the art, and that he formed himself by copying nature before he had acce to see the works of any great ‘master. He began by studying, with great exactne , the simple truth in his figures. He was then ignorant that any choice was nece ary; but he saw the works of Leonardo da Vinci, of Ma acio, ‘and of Michael Angelo, which gave his genius a new direction. After this he perceived that there was something more in the art of painting than a simple imitation of truth, But the works of those masters were not sufficiently perfect to point out the best choice to make; and he continued in uncertainty till he saw at Rome the works of the ancients. Then he perceived that he had found the true models which he wanted; and in imitating them he had only to follow the natural impulse of his genius. Habituated by his first manner to imitate nature with precision, it was not difficult to carry the same exactne into the imitation of the ancients; and it was a great advantage to him that he flourished in an age wherein the artists were not arrived at facility of execution at the expence of rigorous exactne . He never lost sight of nature; but he was instructed by the ancients in what manner she should be studied. He perceived, that the Greeks had not entered into minute details, that they had selected what was great or beautiful, and that one of the chief causes of the beauty of their works was the regularity of their proportions; he began, therefore, by carefully studying this part of the art. He saw also that the joinings of the bones, and the free play of their articulations, are the causes of all graceful muvement: he therefore, after the example of the ancients, gave the greatest attention to this part, and was led by these observations not to be contented with the simple imitation of nature. His design is excellent, but neither so perfect ‘nor so finished as that of the Greeks. He excelled (in representing the character of philosophers, ‘apostles, and other figures of that kind; but he did not equal the Greeks in, ideal figures, which ought to carry the impre ion of divinity. taste for design was more Roman than Greek, because he formed it chiefly on the ba o-relievos ‘which he found at Rome. Qn this account he had the habit of marking strongly the bones and the articulations, and labouring the fleshy parts ‘Te ; but as these ba o-relievos are very exact with regard to the reciprocal proportions of every member, he excelled in this part, while at the same time he did not give to his figures all the elegance of the Greek aitists, nor the flexibility of articulation which is admired in the Laocoon, in the Apollo of Belvidere, and in the Gladiator. The manners and spirit of his age, and the subjects which he most commonly treated, prevented him from reaching -the ideal of the ancients. Having seldom occasion to represent figures altogether ideal, he devoted himself to purity of expre ion. He knew that the expre ion of the pas- _Sions of the soul is absolutely nece ary in an art which represents the actions of men, since from those affections the actions may be said truly to originate. To make figures act, and yet neglect the interior springs of action, is nothing more than a representation of automata, The attitudes and action are evident; but they appear not to act of themselves, because they are void of those principles from which alone men are supposed to act. An artist who neglects expre ion, gives no just representation of character, even though he should fake nature for his model. Raphael’s first care, when he wanted to com- VOL. IX, pose a piece, was to weigh the expre ion; that is to say, to establish, according to the nature of the subject, the pa ions which were to animate the characters. All the figures, ull the acce ories, all the parts of the composition, were moulded to the general expre ion; As he had not found examples in the ancient statues of the claro-obscuro, he was comparatively weak in this part; and if there was any thing remarkable in his distribution of light and shade, he owed it to the works of the Florentine painters, It cannot be said, however, even with regard to ‘the claro-obscuro, that he imitated nature without taste, He delighted in what are called ma es of light; and disposed the great lights in the most conspicuous places of his figures, whether naked Or in drapery. If this method did not produce effects highly illusive, it gives his works that distinctne which makes his figures conspicuous at a ‘distance; and this must be allowed to be an e ential part of the art of painting. He did not proceed beyond this; and content with that kind of claro-obscuro which comprehends imitation, he ‘never attempted that which is ideal. The composition and the ensemble of his figures were the chief excellences of Raphael. His philosophical mind could not be affected with objects which had not expre ion. He had too high an idea of painting to consider it as a mute art; he ‘made it speak to the heart and soul; and he could only do this in subjects which required expre ion. If Raphael did not*reach the Greek excellence, if he did not po e the art of embellishing nature in the same high degree, he saw at least, and imitated her in whatever was expre ive and beautifal. ‘*The Greeks sailed with ‘majesty,’ says Mengs, ‘* between earth and heaven: Raphael walked with propriety on the earth.” ‘‘ Composition is in general,” says the same author, ‘* of two kinds: Raphael’s is the expres- -sive kind; the other is the theatrical or picturesque, which consists of an agreeable disposition of the figures. Lanfranc was the inventor of this ‘last, and after him Pietro de Cortona. I give the preference to Raphael; because reason presides over all his works, or at least the greatest part of them. He never allowed himself in common ideas, and was never allured to give any thing in his acce ory figures, which might turn the attention from the principal object of the piece.” A history of the schools is nothing more than a history of the painters who founded them. those two which we have already given, Michael Angelo and Raphael come readily forward to claim our attention; and therefore we cannot do better than conclude the account by the masterly contrast of these eminent painters given by sir Joshua Reynolds. “If we put those great artists,” says he, “in a light of comparison with each other, Raphael bad more taste and fancy, Michael Angelo more genins and imagination. The one excelled in beauty, the other in energy. Michael Angelo has more of the poetical in operation; his ideas are vast and sublime; his people are a superior order of beings; there is nothing about them, nothing in the air of their actions, their attitudes, or the style and cast of their limbs or features, that puts one in mind of their belonging to our species. Raphael’s imagination is not so elevated; his figures are not so much disjointed from own diminutive race beings, though his ideas are chaste, noble, and of great conformity to their subjects. Michael Angelo’s works have a strong, peculiar, and markad character; they seém te proceed from his own mind entirely; and that mind so rich and abundant, that he never needed, or seemed to disdain, to Yook abroad for foreign help. Raphael’s materials are generally borrowed, though the noble structure is his own, The excellency of this extraordinary yan lay in the propriety, beauty, and majesty of his characters; his judicious contrivance of composition, correctne of drawing, purity of taste, and the skilful accommodation of other men’s conceptions to his own purpose.” This school is the child of nature. The Venetian painters, not having under their eyes like the Roman the remains of an antiquity, were destitute of the means of forming a just idea of the beauty of forms and of expre ion. They copied without choice the forms of nature; but they were chiefly delighted with the beauties which presented themselves in the mixture and the variety of natural colours. Their attention not being detached from this part by any thing of greater importance, colouring was their chief object, and they succeeded in it. They did not rest contented with characterizing the objects by comparison, in making the colour proper for one of more value by the colour more proper for another; but they endeavoured still farther, by the agreement and opposition of the coloured objects, and by the contrast of light and shade, to produce a vigorous effect, to demand and fix the attention. Dominic, who was said to have perished at Florence by the jealousy of Andre Castagna, and who was the second Italian artist who painted in oil, had edueated, before he quitted Venice, his native country, Jacques Bellin, who was remarkable for nothing but the picturesque education which he gave to Gentel and John his two sons. _Gentel, who was the eldest, painted chiefly in water colours. John contributed much to the progre of his art in painting constantly in oil, and after nature. Although he always retained great stiffne in his manner, he had le than his father or brother. Great neatne of colouring, and an approach to harmony, are evident in his works. His taste in design is Gothic, the air of his heads is sufficiently noble, his attitudes are without judgment, and his figures without expre ion. He had for scholars Giorgion and Titian, who deserve to be considered as the founders of the Venetian school. Giorgion distinguished himself by a design of a better taste than that of his master: but he chiefly surpa ed him in colouring. He;died in his 32d year; and excited the emulation of Titian, who soon greatly excelled him. Tiziano Vecelli, known best by the name of Titian, was instructed to copy nature in the most servile manner in the school of John Bellin; but when he had seen the works of Giorgion, he began to study the ideal in colouring. The truth of history is not to be expected in his historical paintings, or in'those of the artists of the same school. He seems to have paid little attention to the consistence of scene, to the eostume, to expre ion adapted to the subject, or finally, to the accommodation of parts which characterise the works of those who have studied the’ ancients. He was in short a great painter, and nothing more. But although he deserves not to be placed among the most distinguished artists in point of judgment, yet he is by no means destitute of great and noble conceptions. There is often to be found among his male figures a considerable degree of grandeur: but if he has sometimes, like Michael Angelo, overcharged his design, it was more discovered in the swelling of the soft and fleshy parts, than in-vigour and muscular strength. Almost entirely devoted to simple imitation, he had scarcely greater choice in the claro-obscure than in design, He cannot be justly reproached at the same time for weakne in this particular; because in endeavouring to imitate the colours of nature, he was obliged to observe the degrees of light. And in proportion as he succeeded in the imitation of natural colours, he must be le defective in the claro-obscuro: but it is not in the knowledge of this part of the art that we are to seek for the beauties of his works, ‘These are to be. found in the happy dispositions of colours both proper and local, and he carries this to the highest point of perfection. The artists in the Florentine and Roman schools painted most commonly in water colours or in fresco; and in the exercise of their profe ion, instead of nature, they finished their works from their first sketches. Titian painted in oil, and finished from the objects in nature; and this practice, joined to his exquisite talents, gave the greatest truth to his colours. His being a portrait painter was also of advantage to him as a colourist. this department he was accustomed to the colours of nature in carnations and draperies. He was a landscape-painter; and here also he took the colours from nature. “ As Titian perceived,” says Mengs, “ that the objects which are beautiful in nature have often a bad effect in painting, he found it nece ary to make a choice in the objects of imitation; and he observed, that these were objects of which the local colours were extremely beautiful, which neverthele were in a great measure destroyed by the reflection of light, by the porosity of the body, and by different Juminous tints, . He perceived ‘also, that in every object there was an infinite number of half tints, which conducted to the knowledge of harmony. In short, he observed in the objects of nature a particular agreement of transparency, of opacity, of rudene , and of polish, and that all objects differed in the degrees of their tints and their shades. It was in this diversity he sought the perfection of his art; and in the execution he moderated the effect of natural colours. For example, in a carnation which had tnany dem i-tints, he confined himself to one; and he employed even le than a dem i-tint, where there were few in the natura] object. By these means he obtained a colouring exquisitely fine; and in this part he was a great master, and deserves to be carefully studied.” Titiam has in general little expre ion in hi pictures, and he sometimes introduces. figures which augment the coldne of the piece; for if it be true that the heads, even in historical painting, ought to be studied after nature, it is true also that an individual nature ought not to be pre-' sented, but one general and ideal. It is nece ary that they should be men, while they resemble not men we are accustomed to see, The painter fails in the effect which he ought to produce, if, when he represents Achilles, Hector, and Cesar, his personages are familiar to our observation. The colours of his paintings are so mingled together, as to give no idea of the colours on his pallet; which distinguishes him from Rubens, who placed his colours one at the side of another. It.’ is impo ible to say, on the narrowest inspection, wilh what colours he produced his tints., This practice, which enabled him to imitate so exactly the colours of nature, gives a marked distinction to his manner of painting. In the examinatien of his works, the critics lose an ordinary source of pleasure which arises from marking the freedom of hand; but they may console themselves with the natural and exquisite touches of this artist, He is of historical painters one of those whe have succeeded in landscape. His situations are well chosen; his trees are varied in their forms, and their foliage well conceived. He had a custom ef representing some remarkable appearance in his landscapes to render them more striking. The distinguishing characteristics of this school are, grace, an agreeable taste for design, without great correction, and mellowne of pencil, and a beautiful mixture of colours, Antonio Allegri, called Corregio, was the father and greatest ornament of this school. He began like the painters of his time to imitate nature alone; but, as he was chiefly delighted with the graceful, he was careful to purify his design from all short Asie 2 and unnece ary angles, perceived that largene contributed to grace; and therefore he not only rejected all small figures, but enlarged as much as po ible the outlines, avoided acute angles and straight lines, and by these means gave an easy grandeur to his design. He made his figures elegant and large; he varied the outlines by frequent undulations; but he was mot always pure and correct. Corregio painted in oil, a kind of painting susceptible of the greatest delicacy and sweetne 5 and as his character led him to cultivate the agreeable, he gave a pleasing captivating tone to all his pictares. He sought transparent colours to represent shades conformable to nature, and adopted a manner of glazing which actually rendered his shadows more obscure. Obscurity in painting cannot be fully obtained without transparent colours; for these absorb the rays of light, and of consequence give le reflection. He laid his colours very thick on the brightest parts of his pictures, to make them capable of receiving, by a proper touch, the greatest degree of light. perceived, that the reflections of light correspond with the colour of the body from which they are reflected; and on these principles he founded his theory of colours with respect to light and shade and reflection. But it is chiefly in the colour of his shades that he deserves to be imitated;- for his lights are too clear, and somewhat heavy; and his fleshy parts are not sufficiently transparent. ‘Harmony and grace are connected together; and on this account Corregio excelled also in harmony. As the delicacy of his taste suffered him not to employ strong oppositions, he naturally became @ great master in this part, which chiefly consists of easy gradations from one extreme to.another. He was harmonious in his design, by making the lines which formed the angles of the contour arched and undulated. Both in the ‘lights and shades, he placed always between the two extremes a space which served to unite them, _and to form a pa age from the one to the other. The delicacy of his organs made him perceive, ‘better than any other artist, what relief was nete ary to the eye after a violent exertion; and “he was therefore careful to follow a bold and pre- Wailing colour with a dem i-tint, and to conduct the eye of the spectator, by an invisible gradation, to ats ordinary state of tension. In the same matimer (says Mengs) does agreeable and melting music Pull one so gently ont of sleep, that the awaking resembles enchantment more than the disturbing of repose. A delicate taste in colours, a perfect knowledge of the claro-obscuro, the art of uniting light to light, and shade to shade, together with that of detaching the objects from the ground, inimitable, grave, and perfect harmony, were the qualities which distinguished Corregio from all the painters, and placed him near the head of his profe ion. The Carracci, Lewis, August in, and Hannibal, formed what is called the second Lombard school, which is frequently distinguished by the name of the echocl of Bologna. Lewis was the master of the other two: he had studied the works of Titian and Paul Veronese at Venice, those of Andre del Sarte at Florence, those of Corregio at Parma, and those of Jules Romaen at Mantua; but he chiefly endeavoured to imitate the manner of. Corregio. Hannibal fluctuated between Corregio and Titian, August in their rival in painting had his mind cultivated by learning, and devoted part of his time to poetry and music, to dancing and to other manly exercises, These three painters often employed their talents on the same piece; and it was admirable that their united labours seemed to be animated with the same spirit. They established an academy at Bologna, which their zeal for the advancement of their art made them call l’Academia degli Desi deros i; but it was afterwards called the Academy of the Carracci, because the reputation which these artists acquired permitted not a more i flus trio us name to be given to an establishment of which they were the founders. In this school were taught the art of cons struct ing models, perspective, and anatomy; le ons were given on the beantiful proportions of nature, on the best manner of using colours, and on the principles of light and shade. They held frequent conferences, in which not only artists, but men of general knowledge, were permitted to elucidate. points relative to the art of painting: but they were separated upon Hannibal’s going to Rome to adorn the gallery of the cardinal Farnese. The works of the Carracci are often, from the resemblance of their manner, confounded toe gether; especially those which were finished previous to the residence of Hannibal at Rome, Meanwhile each of them has a decided character distinct from the other two. Lewis had le fire, but more of gracefulne and grandeur: August in had more spirit in his conception, and more pleasantne in his execution: Hannibal is characterized by boldne , by a design more profound, by an expre ion more lucky, and by an execue tion more solid. Sir Joshua Reynolds, who saw the works of Lewis at Bologna, holds him out in his discourses as the best model fur what is called style in painting 3 which is the faculty of disposing colours in such a manner as to expre our sentiments and ideas. ‘* Lodovico Carracci,” says he, ‘‘ ({ mean in his, best works) appears to me to approach the nearest to perfection. His unaffected breadth of light and shadow, the simplicity of colouring, which, holding its proper rank, does not draw aside the least part of the attention from the subject, and the solemn effect of that twilight which seems diffused over his pictures, appears to me to correspond with grave and dignified subjects better than the more artificial brilliancy of sunshine which enlightens the pictures of Titian.” Hannibal is esteemed by the best judges as a mode) for beauty and design. Those who blame him for becoming le a colourist at Rome than he was at Bologna, ought to recollect that it is his performances at Rome which have chiefly secured his reputation. Severe critics have maintained ‘ that his design is too little varied in his figures; that he excels only in male beauty; that in imitating ancient statues, he excites some resemblance, but without arriving at the sublimity of ideas and of style which characterize the ancients; or, in other words, that he hath succe fully imitated the exterior of their manner, but that he was incapable of reaching the interior and profound reasonings which determined those admirable artists. The succe of Hannibal, and the reputation which he acquired, have been pernicious to the art. His succe ors, deluded by these considerations, have made him the object of their imitation, without ascending to the scources from which he derived his knowledge, and which he never could equal. he result has been, that, instead of becoming equal to Hannibal, they have often copied his imperfections, This school has been so different under different masters, that it is difficult to characterize it. Some of its artists have been formed on the Florentine and Lombard manner, others on the Roman, others on the Venetian, and a few of them have distinguished themselves by a manner which may be called their own. In speaking in genera] terms of this school, it appears to have no peculiar character; and it can only be distinguished by its aptitude to imitate easily any impre ion; and it may be added, speaking still in general terms, that it unites, in a moderate degree, the different parts of the art, without excelling in any one of them. It is equally difficult to determine the progre of painting in France. Miniature painting, and painting on gla , were early cultivated in that country; and in these two kinds, the Italians had often recourse to the French artists, When Francis I. encouraged Ro o, a Florentine, and Primatice, a Bolognian, the painters in France were not remarkable for any superior talent; but they were capable of working under these foreign artists, Cousin, a painter on gla , and portrait-painter, was the first who established any kind of reputation in France. He was correct, but po e ed very little elegance of design. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32