Abbildungen der Seite

mixed expreffion, he has in some instances produced an indistinct and imperfect marking, which leaves room for every imagination to find, with equal probability, a passion of its own.

. " We can easily, fays the President, like the antients, suppose a Jupiter to be possessed of all those powers and perfections which the subordinate deities were endowed with separately; yet, when they employed their art to represent him, they confined his character to majesty alone.

"Pliny, therefore, though we are under great obligations to him for the information which he has given us, in relation to the works of theantient artists, is very frequently wrong when he speaks of them, which he does very often, in the style of many of our modern connoisseurs. He observes, that in a statue of Paris, by Euphranor, you might discover at the same time three different characters; the dignity of a Judge of the Goddesses, the Lover of Helen, and the conqueror of Achilles. A statue in which you endeavour to unite stately dignity, youthful elegance, and stern valour, must surely possess none of these to any eminent degree."

What is further offered upon this subject concludes thus:

"I do not discourace the younger students, from the .noble attempt of uniting all the excellencies of art, but to make them aware, that, besides the difficulties which attend every arduous attempt, there is a peculiar difficulty in the choice of the excellencies which ought to be united. I wish you to attend to /this, that you may try yourselves, whenever you. are capable of that trial, what you can, and what you

Vol. XVI.

cannot do; and that, instead of dissipating your natural faculties over the immense si.ld of possible excellence, you may chuse some particular walk, in may exercise all your powers; in order each of you to be the first in his way,

'« If any man shall be master of such a transcendent, commanding, and ductile genius, as to enable him to rife to the highest, and to stoop to the lowest, slights of art, and to sweep over all of them unobllructed and secure, he is fitter to give example than to receive instruction." V

■ Having said thus much of the union of excellencies, our author proceeds to fay something of the subordination in which various excellencies ought to be kept.

He is of opinion, that the ornamental style, which in his last discourse he cautioned the students against considering as a principal, may not be wholly unworthy the attention of those who aim even at the grand style, when it is properly placed, and properly reduced: he advises the application of the ornamental style to fofien the harshness, and mitigate the rigour of the great style, rather than the pushing it forward with pretensions to positive and original excellence of its own.

To support this precept, he alledges cue example of Lodovico Caracci.

"Lodovico, fays he, was acquainted with,.jth«.works both of Cnrreggio, sfixfclhe Venetian painters, and knew the principles by which they produced those pleasing effects, whii-h at first glance prepossess us so much in their favour; but he took only as much from each

M a«

as would embellish, but not overpower that manly strength, and energy of style, which is his peculiar character."

He proceeds to mention some particulars, relative to the leading principles, and capital works of those, who excelled in the great fiyle, that by further exemplifying the propositions he has laid down, he may be more perfectly understood.

"The principal works of modern art, fays he, are in Fresco; a

mode of painting which excludes

attention to minute elegancies: yet

these works in Fresco are the productions on which the fame of the

greatest masters depend: such are

the pictures of Michael Angelo,

and Raphael, in the Vatican, to

which we may add the Cartoons;

which, though not strictly to be

called Fresco, yet may be put under

that denomination; and such are

the works of Julio Romano at Man.

tua. If these performances were

destroyed, with them would be lost

the best part of the reputation of

those illustrious painters; for these

are justly considered as the greatest

efforts of our art which the world

can boast. To these, therefore, we

should principally direct our attention for higher excellencies. As

for the lower arts, as they have

been once discovered, they may be

easily attained by those possessed of

the former.

"Raphael, who stands in general foremost of the first painters,

owes his reputation to his excellence in the higher parts of the art:

therefore , his works in Fresco

ought to be the first object of our

study and attention. His easel

works stand in a lower degree of

estimation; for though he conti

nually, to the day of his death, embellished his works more and more with the addition of these lower ornaments, which entirely make the merit of some; yet he never arrived at such perfection, as to make him an object of imitation. He never was able to conquer perfectly that drynesi, or even littleness of manner, which he inherited from his master. He never acquired that nicety of taste in colours, that breadth of light and shadow, that art and management of uniting light to light, and shadow to shadow, so as to make the object rise out of the ground, with that plenitude of effect so much admired in the works of Correggio. When he painted in oil, his hand seemed to be so cramped and confined, that he not only lost that facility and spirit, but I think even that correctness of form, which is so perfect and admirable in hit Fresco works. I do not recollect an-y pictures of his of this kind, except perhaps the Transfiguration, in which there are not some parts that appear to have been feebly drawn.

«« That this is not a necessary attendant on oil painting, we have abundant instances in more modern painters. Lodovico Caracci, fer instance, preserved in his works in oil the fame spirit, vigour, and correctness, which he had in Fresco. •

"I have no desire to degrade Raphael frpm the high rank which he deservedly holds; but by comparing him with himself, he does not appear to me to be the (ame man in oil as in Fresco.

"From those who have ambition to tread in this great walk of the art, Michael Angelo claims the next attention.


n He did not possess so many excellencies as Raphael; but those he bad were os the highest kind. He considered the art as consisting ef little more than what may be attained by sculpture, correctness of form, aud energy of character. We ought not to expect more than an artist intends in his work. He never attempted those lesser elegancies and graces in the art. Vasari says, he never painted but one picture in oil,-and resolved never to paint another, faying, 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.

"It must be acknowledge likewise, that together with these, which we wish he had more attended to, he has rejected all the false, though specious ornaments, which disgrace the works even of the most esteemed artists; and I will venture to lay, that when those higher excellencies are more known and cultivated by the artists and the patrons of arts, his fame and credit will increase with our increasing knowledge.

"His name will then be held in the fame veneration, as it was in the enlightened age of Leo the Tenth: and it is remarkable, that the reputation of this truly great nan has been continually declining, as the art itself has declined: for I must remark to you, that it

has long been much on the decline, and that our only hope of its revival will consist in your being thoroughly sensible of its depravatioa and decay.

"It is to Michael Angelo that Raphael owes the grandeur of his style. He was taught by him to elevate his thoughts, and to conceive his subjects with dignity.

"His genius, however formed to blaze and to shine, might, like sire in combustible matter, fur ever have lain dormant, if it had not caught a spark by its contact with Michael Angelo: and though it never hurst out with that extraordinary heat and vehemence, yet it must be acknowledged to be a pure, regular, and chaste flame. Though our judgment will, upon the whole, decide in. favour of Raphael; yet he never takes that firm hold and entire possession of the mind, in such a manner as to desire nothing else, and feel nothing wanting.

"If we put those great artists in a light of comparison with each other, Raphael had more taste and. fancy, Michael Angelo more genius and imagination. The one excelled in beauty, the other in energy. Michael Angelo has more of the poetical inspiration: 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, or their attitudes, or the style and cast of their very limbs or features, that puts one in mind of their belonging to our own species. Raphael's imagination is not so elevated.; his figures are not so much disjoined from our own diminutive race of beings; though his ideas are chaste, noble, and of great conformity to their subjects. Michael Angelo's M 2 work* .works have a siroag, peculiar, and marked character: they seem to proceed frem his own mind entirely, ar.d that mir.d so rich and abundant, thai he never needed, or seemed to cisdain, to look abroad for screign help. Raphael's matcTials are generally borrowed, though •the noble structure is his own.

«« The excellency of this extra. ordinary man lay in the propriety, beauty, and majesty of his charac ters, hisi judicious contrivance of his composition, correctness of drawing, purity of taste, and the skilful accommodation of other men's conceptions to his own purpose. Nobody excelled him in that judgment, with whith he united to his own observations on nature, the ■energy of Michael Angelo, and the beauty and simplicity of the antique. To the question, therefore, which ought to hold the first rank, Raphael or Michael Angelo, it mull be answered, that if it is to be jiven to him who possessed a greater combination of the higher qualities of the art than any other man, there is no doubt but Raphael is the ■first: but if, according to Longinus, the sublime, being the highest excellence that human compolition can attain to, abundantly compensates the absence of every other beauty, and atones for all other deficiencies, then Michael Angelo demands the preference."

The President having thus compared the excellencies of Raphael ■ and Michael Angelo in the great style, observes, that there is ano• ther, which, though inferior, has great merit, because it shews a live. ly and vigorous imagination. This he calls the original or character, istical style: as the most striking example of thii style, he mentions - ta'vator Rosa.

"This mailer, fays he. gives os a peculiar cast of nature, which, theugh veid of all grace, elegance, and simplicity, though it has r.othing of that elevation and dignity which belongs to the grand style, yet has that fort of dignity which belongs to savage and uncultivated nature: butwhat is most to be admired in him is, the perfect correspondence which he observed between the subjects which he chose, and his manner of treating them. Every thing is of a piece: his rocks, trees, Iky, even to his handling, have the fame rude and wild character, which animates his figures."

With Salvator Rosa our author contrasts Carlo Maratti, who practised all the rules of art, and whose stvle was without manifest defects, and without striking beauties.

He proceeds to contrast Rubens and Pouliin with great judgment and precision.

"In Rubens, fays he, art is too apparent. His figures have expression, and act with energy, but without simplicity or dignity. His colouring, in which he is eminently {killed, is notwithstanding too much what we call tinted. Throughout the whole of his works, there is a proportionableWant of that nicety of distinction, and elegance of mind, which is required in the higher walks of painting; and to this want it may be in some degree as. cribed, that those qualities which make the excellency of this subordinate style appear in him with greater lustre. Indeed, the facility with which he invented, the richness of his composition, the luxuriant harmony and brilliancy of his colouring, so dazzle the eye, that, whilst his works continue before os,

we we cannot help thinking, that all his deficiencies are fully supplied.

"Opposed to this florid, careless, loose, and inaccurate style, that of the simple, careful, pure, and correct style of Pouffin, seems to be a compleat contrast.

"Yet, however opposite their characters, in one tiling thev agreed, both of them having a perfect correspondence between all the parti of their respective manners.

"Pouffin lived and conversed with the ancient statues so long, that he may be said to be better acquainted with them, than with the people who were about him.

"No works of any mocern have so much of the air os antique pains, ing. His best performances have a remarkable dryness of manner, which though by no means to be recommended for imitation, yet seems perfectly correspondent to that ancient simplicity which distinguishes his style.

"The favourite subjects of Pouffin were ancient fables; and no painter was ever better qualified to paint such subjects, not only from his being eminently (killed in the Itnowleage of ceremonies, customs, and habits of the ancients, but from bis being so well acquainted with the different characters which th»!e who invented them gave their allegorical figures. Though Rubens has shewn great fancy in his satyrs, filenus's, and fauns\ yet they are not that distinct, separate class of beings, which is carefully exhibited by the ancients, and by Pouffin.

"Certainly when such subjects of antiquity are represented, nothing in the picture ought to remind us of modern times. The mind is thrown back into antiquity, and nothing ought to be in

troduced, that may tyid to awaken it from the illusion.

"If Pouffin, in imitation of the ancients, represents Apollo driving his chariot out of the sea, by way of representing the sun riling, if he personifies lakes and rivers, it is no ways offensive in him j but seems perfectly of a piece with the general air of the picture. On the contrary, if the figures which people his pictures had a modern air or counienance, if they appeared like our countrymen, if the draperies were like cloth or silk of our manufacture, if the lanc'Ccip had the appearance of a modern view, how ridiculous would Apollo appear inr stead of the fun, an old man or a nymph with an urn instead of a river or lake.

"Upon the whole, fays our author, it appears, that, setting aside, the ornamental style, there are two different paths, cither of which a student may take, without degrading the dignity of his art. The first is to combine the higher excellencies, and embellish them to the greatest advantage: the other is to carry one of thele excellencies to the highest degree. But those who possess neither must be classed with them, who, as Shakespeare says, are men of no mark or likelihood."

We have made this article long, but for thi3 we may rather plead merit, than make an apology, as the critical opinion of so great a master, concerning the comparative merits of those whose works have so long been the subject of enthusiastic admiration, cannot fail of giving very great enttrta.inrr.ent to our readers,

[ocr errors][merged small]
« ZurückWeiter »