按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
It has sometimes happened that some of the greatest men in our art have been betrayed into errors by this confined mode of reasoning。 Poussin； who； upon the whole； may be produced as an instance of attention to the most enlarged and extensive ideas of nature； from not having settled principles on this point； has in one instance at least； I think； deserted truth for prejudice。 He is said to have vindicated the conduct of Julio Romano； for his inattention to the masses of light and shade； or grouping the figures； in the battle of Constantine； as if designedly neglected； the better to correspond with the hurry and confusion of a battle。 Poussin's own conduct in his representations of Bacchanalian triumphs and sacrifices； makes us more easily give credit to this report； since in such subjects； as well indeed as in many others； it was too much his own practice。 The best apology we can make for this conduct is what proceeds from the association of our ideas； the prejudice we have in favour of antiquity。 Poussin's works； as I have formerly observed； have very much the air of the ancient manner of painting； in which there are not the least traces to make us think that what we call the keeping； the composition of light and shade； or distribution of the work into masses； claimed any part of their attention。 But surely whatever apology we may find out for this neglect； it ought to be ranked among the defects of Poussin； as well as of the antique paintings； and the moderns have a right to that praise which is their due； for having given so pleasing an addition to the splendour of the art。
Perhaps no apology ought to be received for offences committed against the vehicle （whether it be the organ of seeing or of hearing） by which our pleasures are conveyed to the mind。 We must take the same care that the eye be not perplexed and distracted by a confusion of equal parts； or equal lights； as of offending it by an unharmonious mixture of colours。 We may venture to be more confident of the truth of this observation； since we find that Shakespeare； on a parallel occasion； has made Hamlet recommend to the players a precept of the same kind； never to offend the ear by harsh sounds：… 〃In the very torrent； tempest； and whirlwind of your passions；〃 says he； 〃you must beget a temperance that may give it smoothness。〃 And yet； at the same time； he very justly observes； 〃The end of playing； both at the first and now； is to hold； as it were； the mirror up to nature。〃 No one can deny but that violent passions will naturally emit harsh and disagreeable tones； yet this great poet and critic thought that this imitation of nature would cost too much； if purchased at the expense of disagreeable sensations； or； as he expresses it； of 〃splitting the ear。〃 The poet and actor； as well as the painter of genius who is well acquainted with all the variety and sources of pleasure in the mind and imagination； has little regard or attention to common nature； or creeping after common sense。 By overleaping those narrow bounds； he more effectually seizes the whole mind； and more powerfully accomplishes his purpose。 This success is ignorantly imagined to proceed from inattention to all rules； and in defiance of reason and judgment； whereas it is in truth acting according to the best rules； and the justest reason。
He who thinks nature； in the narrow sense of the word； is alone to be followed； will produce but a scanty entertainment for the imagination： everything is to be done with which it is natural for the mind to be pleased； whether it proceeds from simplicity or variety； uniformity or irregularity： whether the scenes are familiar or exotic； rude and wild； or enriched and cultivated； for it is natural for the mind to be pleased with all these in their turn。 In short； whatever pleases has in it what is analogous to the mind； and is therefore； in the highest and best sense of the word； natural。
It is this sense of nature or truth which ought more particularly to be cultivated by the professors of art； and it may be observed that many wise and learned men； who have accustomed their minds to admit nothing for truth but what can be proved by mathematical demonstration； have seldom any relish for those arts which address themselves to the fancy； the rectitude and truth of which is known by another kind of proof： and we may add that the acquisition of this knowledge requires as much circumspection and sagacity； as to attain those truths which are more open to demonstration。 Reason must ultimately determine our choice on every occasion； but this reason may still be exerted ineffectually by applying to taste principles which； though right as far as they go； yet do not reach the object。 No man； for instance； can deny that it seems at first view very reasonable； that a statue which is to carry down to posterity the resemblance of an individual should be dressed in the fashion of the times； in the dress which he himself wore： this would certainly be true if the dress were part of the man。 But after a time the dress is only an amusement for an antiquarian； and if it obstructs the general design of the piece； it is to be disregarded by the artist。 Common sense must here give way to a higher sense。
In the naked form； and in the disposition of the drapery； the difference between one artist and another is principally seen。 But if he is compelled to the modern dress； the naked form is entirely hid； and the drapery is already disposed by the skill of the tailor。 Were a Phidias to obey such absurd commands； he would please no more than an ordinary sculptor； since； in the inferior parts of every art； the learned and the ignorant are nearly upon a level。
These were probably among the reasons that induced the sculptor of that wonderful figure of Laocoon to exhibit him naked； notwithstanding he was surprised in the act of sacrificing to Apollo； and consequently ought to be shown in his sacerdotal habits； if those greater reasons had not preponderated。 Art is not yet in so high estimation with us as to obtain so great a sacrifice as the ancients made； especially the Grecians； who suffered themselves to be represented naked； whether they were generals； lawgivers； or kings。
Under this head of balancing and choosing the greater reason； or of two evils taking the least； we may consider the conduct of Rubens in the Luxembourg gallery； of mixing allegorical figures with representations of real personages； which； though acknowledged to be a fault； yet； if the artist considered himself as engaged to furnish this gallery with a rich and splendid ornament； this could not be done； at least in an equal degree； without peopling the air and water with these allegorical figures： he therefore accomplished that he purposes。 In this case all lesser considerations； which tend to obstruct the great end of the work； must yield and give way。
If it is objected that Rubens judged ill at first in thinking it necessary to make his work so very ornamental； this brings the question upon new ground。 It was his peculiar style； he could paint in no other； and he was selected for that work； probably； because it was his style。 Nobody will dispute but some of the best of the Roman or Bolognian schools would have produced a more learned and more noble work。
This leads us to another important province of taste； of weighing the value of the different classes of the art； and of estimating them accordingly。
All arts have means within them of applying themselves with success both to the intellectual and sensitive part of our natures。 It can be no dispute； supposing both these means put in practice with equal abilities； to which we ought to give the preference： to him who represents the heroic arts and more dignified passions of man； or to him who； by the help of meretricious ornaments； however elegant and graceful； captivates the sensuality； as it may be called； of our taste。 Thus the Roman and Bolognian schools are reasonably preferred to the Venetian； Flemish； or Dutch schools； as they address themselves to our best and noblest faculties。
Well…turned periods in eloquence； or harmony of numbers in poetry； which are in those arts what colouring is in painting； however highly we may esteem them； can never be considered as of equal importance with the art of unfolding truths that are useful to mankind； and which make us better or wiser。 Nor can those works which remind us of the poverty and meanness of our nature； be considered as of equal rank with what excites ideas of grandeur； or raises and dignifies humanity； or； in the words of a late poet； which makes the beholder learn to venerate himself as man。
It is reason and good sense therefore which ranks and estimates every art； and every part of that art； according to its importance； from the painter of animated down to inanimated nature。 We will not allow a man； who shall prefer the inferior style； to say it is his taste； taste here has nothing； or at least ought to have nothing to do with the question。 He wants not taste； but sense； and soundness of judgment。
Indeed； perfection in an inferior style may be reasonably preferred to mediocrity in the highest walks of art。 A landscape of Claude Lorraine may be preferred to a histo