preffed in many of them, to go through fome parts of the forms of religious fervice to which the learned and judicious Author was frequently called.

ART. V. A Difcourfe delivered to the Students of the Royal Academy, on the Diftribution of Prizes, Dec. 14, 1770. By the Prefident. 4to. 1 s. 6d. Davies. 1771.

TH

HIS Difcourfe is on the gufto grande, or great style in painting, which the prefident recommends to the ftudents as their primary purfuit, fince that purfuit, though it might not always attain its principal purpofe, would neverthelefs be attended with advantages. By aiming at better things, if from particular inclination, or from the tafte of the time and place he lives in, or from neceffity, or from failure in the highest attempts, the student should be obliged to defcend lower; he would bring into the lower sphere of art a grandeur of compofition and character, that would raise his works above their natural rank.

This is undeniably true. He who ftudies the genius and first principles of any art or science, and pursues it in its highest departments, will defcend to the lower with more enlarged ideas, and a greater command. It is particularly true in painting. The artist who ftrengthens his mind, and acquires a liberality and magnificence of conception in the higher walks of Nature, will find thofe advantages even in the mechanism of portrait painting, and the limited fphere of ftill life. Poffibly the reason why Phidias excelled fo greatly as a ftatuary was, that he had originally been a painter. It is certain that he painted many figures before he undertook his inimitable statue of Minerva.

The means which the learned president points out to the ftudents as most capable of conducting them to this great ftyle in painting, appear to be rational and well founded, fo far at leaft as they exclude individual imitation, the great bane of the progrefs of genius.

The wifh of the genuine painter, fays he, muft be more extensive: instead of endeavouring to amufe mankind with the minute neatness of his imitations, he must endeavour to improve them by the grandeur of his ideas; inftead of feeking praife, by deceiving the fuperficial fenfe of the fpectator, he muft ftrive for fame, by captivating the imagination.

The principle now laid down, that the perfection of this art does not confift in mr imitation, is far from being new or fingular. It is, indt

the enlightened part of rhetoricians of antiquity, a that all the arts receive t

༈ ,

.

vh general opinion of

ets, orators, and

cing this pofition,

from an ideal bauty,

fuperior

fuperior to what is to be found in individual nature. They are ever referring to the practice of the painters and fculptors of their times, particularly Phidias (the favourite artist of antiquity) to illuftrate their affertions. As if they could not fufficiently express their admiration of his genius by what they knew, they have recourfe to poetical enthufiafm. They call it inspiration, a gift from heaven; the artift is fuppofed to have afcended the celeftial regions, to furnish his mind with this perfect idea of beauty. "He, fays Proclus, who takes for his model fuch forms as nature produces, and confines himself to an exact imitation of them, will never attain to what is perfectly beautiful. For the works of nature are full of difproportion, and fail very fhort of the true ftandard of beauty. So that Phidias, when he formed his Jupiter, did not copy any object ever presented to his fight; but contemplated only that image which he had conceived in his mind from Homer's defcription." And thus Cicero, fpeaking of the fame Phidias; "Neither did this artift, fays he, when he carved the image of Jupiter or Minerva, set before him any one human figure, as a pattern, which he was to copy; but having a more perfect idea of beauty fixed in his mind, this he fteadily contemplated, and to the imitation of this all his skill and labour were directed."

Let us now hear on what principles he founds his precepts. All the objects which are exhibited to our view by Nature, upon close examination will be found to have their blemishes and defects. The most beautiful forms have fomething about them like weakness, minutenefs, or imperfection. But it is not every eye that perceives these blemishes; it must be an eye long used to the contemplation and comparison of these forms; and which, by a long habit of obferving what any fet of objects of the fame kind have in common, has acquired the power of difcerning what each wants in particular. This long laborious comparison fhould be the firft ftudy of the painter, who aims at the greatest ftyle. By this means he acquires a juft idea of beautiful forms; he corrects Nature by herfelf, her imperfect state by her more perfect. His eye being enabled to diftinguifh the accidental deficiencies, excrefcences and deformities of things from their general figures, he makes out an abstract idea of their forms more perfect than any one original; and, what may seem a paradox, he learns to defign naturally by drawing his figures unlike to any one object. This idea of the perfect state of nature, which she artift calls the ideal beauty, is the great leading principle, by which works of genius are conducted. By this Phidias acquired his fame. He wrought upon a fober principle, what has fo much excited the enthufiafm of the world; and by this method you, who

have courage to tread the fame path, may acquire equal repu

tation.

This is the idea which has acquired, and which feems to have a right to the epithet of divine; as it may be faid to prefide, like a fupreme judge, over all the productions of nature; appearing to be poffeffed of the will and intention of the Creator, as far as they regard the external form of living beings.

When a man once poffeffes this idea in its perfection, there is no danger but that he will be fufficiently warmed by it himfelf, and be able to warm and ravish every one else.

Thus it is from a reiterated experience, and a close comparison of the objects in nature, that an artift becomes poffeffed of the idea of that central form, if I may fo exprefs it, from which every deviation is deformity. But the investigation of this form I grant is painful, and I know but of one method of shortening the road; this is, by a careful study of the works of the ancient fculptors; who, being indefatigable in the school of nature, have left mode's of that perfect form behind them, which an artist would prefer as fupremely beautiful, who had fpent his whole life in that fingle contemplation. But if induftry carried them thus far, may not you alfo hope for the fame reward from the fame labour? We have the fame school opened to us that was opened to them; for Nature denies her inftructions to none who defire to become her pupils.

To the principle I have laid down, that the idea of beauty in each fpecies of beings is invariably one, it may be objected, that in every fpecies there are various central forms, which are feparate and diftinct from each other, and yet are undeniably beautiful; that in the human figure, for instance, the beauty of the Hercules is one, of the Gladiator another, of the Apollo another; which makes fo many different ideas of beauty.

It is true, indeed, that these figures are each perfect in their kind, though of different characters and proportions; but still neither of them is the reprefentation of an individual, but of a clafs. And as there is one general form, which, as I have faid, belongs to the human kind at large, fo in each of thefe claffes there is one common idea and central form, which is the abftract of the various individual forms belonging to that clafs. Thus, though the forms of childhood and age differ exceedingly; there is a common form in childhood, and a common form in age, which is the more perfect, as it is more, remote from all peculiarities. But I must add further, that though the moft perfect forms of each of the general divifions of the human figure are ideal, and fuperior to any individual form of that class; yet the higheft perfection of the human figure is not to be found in any one of them; it is not in the Hercules, nor

in the Gladiator, nor in the Apollo; but in that form which is compounded of them all, and which partakes equally of the activity of the Gladiator, of the delicacy of the Apollo, and of the muscular strength of the Hercules. For perfect beauty in any species must combine all the characters which are beautiful in that fpecies. It cannot confift in any one to the exclufion of the reft: no one, therefore, must be predominant, that no one may be deficient.

The knowledge of thefe different characters, and the power of feparating and diftinguishing them, is undoubtedly neceffary to the painter, who is to vary his compofitions with figures of various forms and proportions, though he is never to lofe fight of the general idea of perfection in each kind.

There is likewife, a kind of fymmetry, or proportion, which may properly be faid to belong to deformity. A figure lean or corpulent, tall or fhort, though deviating from beauty, may ftill have a certain union of the various parts, which may contribute to make them, on the whole, not unpleafing.'

After having thus inftructed the ftudent how he may ac quire the real forms of Nature diftinct from accidental deformity, and, independently of individual imitation, obtain a general idea of excellence; he proceeds to inform him how he may learn to feparate genuine Nature from thofe adventitious affected airs or actions with which he is difguifed by modern education.

or

• Perhaps I cannot better explain what I mean, than by re minding you of what was taught us by the Profeffor of Anatomy, in respect to the natural pofition and movement of the feet. He obferved that the fashion of turning them outwards was contrary to the intent of nature, as might be seen from the ftructure of the bones, and from the weakness that proceeded from that manner of standing. To this we may add the erect pofition of the head, the projection of the cheft, the walking with ftrait knees, and many fuch actions, which are merely the refult of fashion, and what nature never warranted, as we are fure that we have been taught them when children.

I have mentioned but a few of thofe inftances, in which vanity or caprice have contrived to diftort and disfigure the hu man form; your own recollection will add to these a thousand more of ill-understood methods, that have been practifed to disguise nature, among our dancing mafters, hair-dreffers, and taylors, in their various schools of deformity.

However the mechanic and ornamental arts may facrifice to fashion, she must be entirely excluded from the art of Painting; the painter muft never mistake this capricious changeling. for the genuine offspring of Nature; he must diveft himself of all prejudices in favour of his age or country; he must difre

gard

gard all local and temporary ornaments, and look only on those general habits that are every where and always the fame. He addrefles his works to the people of every country and every age; he calls upon pofterity to be his fpectators, and fays with Zeuxis, In æternitatem pingo.

The neglect of feparating modern fashions from the habits of Nature, leads to that ridiculous ftile which has been practifed by fome painters, who have given to Græcian heroes the airs and graces practifed in the court of Lewis the Fourteenth; an abfurdity almost as great as it would have been to have dreffed them after the fathion of that court.

To avoid this error, however, and to retain the true fimplicity of Nature, is a task more difficult than at first fight it may appear. The prejudices in favour of the fashions and cuftoms that we have been used to, and which are justly called a fecond nature, make it too often difficult to diftinguish that which is natural, from that which is the refult of education; they frequently even give a predilection in favour of the artifi cial mode; and almoft every one is apt to be guided by thofe local prejudices who has not chaftifed his mind, and regulated the inftability of his affections, by the eternal invariable idea of Nature.

Here then, as before, we must have recourse to the ancients as inftructors. It is from a careful ftudy of their works that you will be enabled to attain to the real fimplicity of Nature; they will fuggeft many obfervations, which would probably efcape you, if your ftudy were confined to Nature alone. And, indeed, I cannot help fufpecting, that in this inftance, the ancients had an easier tafk than the moderns. They had, probably, little or nothing to unlearh, as their manners were nearly approaching to this defirable fimplicity; while the modern artist, before he can fee the truth of things, is obliged to remove a veil, with which the fashion of the times has thought proper to cover her.'

If there are any defects in this Difcourfe, they arife chiefly, perhaps, from a partiality to a particular walk of painting. Though Hogarth's chief excellence confifted in the exhibition of familiar life, yet that furely is no reafon why he should be entitled only to an inferior degree of praife. If Nature is strongly pourtrayed to us, the imitative art has its end, and if it is common and unabftracted Nature, perhaps not the leaft useful end is obtained.

For our Author's Difcourfe on the diftribution of the prizes for the year 1769, we refer to the 42d volume of our Review, P 317. See allo Rev. vol. 40, p. 310, for his oration at the opening of the Royal Academy.

REV. May 1771.

Cc

ART. VI.