I would ask any man qualified to judge of such works, whether he can

look with indifference at the personification of the Supreme Being in

the centre of the Capella Sestina, or the figures of the Sybils which

surround that chapel, to which we may add the statue of Moses; and

whether the same sensations are not excited by those works, as what he

may remember to have felt from the most sublime passages of Homer? I

mention those figures more particularly, as they come nearer to a

comparison with his Jupiter, his demi-gods, and heroes; those Sybils

and Prophets being a kind of intermediate beings between men and

angels. Though instances may be produced in the works of other

Painters, which may justly stand in competition with those I have

mentioned--such as the Isaiah, and the vision of Ezekiel, by

Raffaelle, the St. Mark of Frate Bartolomeo, and many others; yet

these, it must be allowed, are inventions so much in Michel Angelo's

manner of thinking, that they may be truly considered as so many rays,

which discover manifestly the centre from whence they emanated.

The sublime in Painting, as in Poetry, so overpowers, and takes such a

possession of the whole mind, that no room is left for attention to

minute criticism. The little elegancies of art in the presence of these

great ideas thus greatly expressed, lose all their value, and are, for

the instant, at least, felt to be unworthy of our notice. The correct

judgment, the purity of taste which characterise Raffaelle, the

exquisite grace of Correggio and Parmegiano, all disappear before them.

That Michel Angelo was capricious in his inventions cannot be denied;

and this may make some circumspection necessary in studying his works;

for though they appear to become him, an imitation of them is always

dangerous, and will prove sometimes ridiculous. "Within that circle

none durst walk but he." To me, I confess his caprice does not lower

the estimation of his genius, even though it is sometimes, I

acknowledge, carried to the extreme: and however those eccentric

excursions are considered, we must at the same time recollect that

those faults, if they are faults, are such as never could occur to a

mean and vulgar mind: that they flowed from the same source which

produced his greatest beauties, and were, therefore, such as none but

himself was capable of committing: they were the powerful impulses of

a mind unused to subjection of any kind, and too high to be controlled

by cold criticism.

Many see his daring extravagance who can see nothing else. A young

Artist finds the works of Michel Angelo so totally different from

those of his own master, or of those with whom he is surrounded, that

he may be easily persuaded to abandon and neglect studying a style

which appears to him wild, mysterious, and above his comprehension,

and which he therefore feels no disposition to admire; a good

disposition, which he concludes that he should naturally have, if the

style deserved it. It is necessary, therefore, that students should be

prepared for the disappointment which they may experience at their

first setting out; and they must be cautioned, that probably they will

not, at first sight, approve.

It must be remembered, that this great style itself is artificial in

the highest degree: it presupposes in the spectator, a cultivated and

prepared artificial state of mind. It is an absurdity, therefore, to

suppose that we are born with this taste, though we are with the seeds

of it, which, by the heat and kindly influence of this genius, may be

ripened in us.

A late Philosopher and Critic[18] has observed, speaking of taste,

that _we are on no account to expect that fine things should descend

to us_--our taste, if possible, must be made to ascend to them. The

same learned writer recommends to us _even to feign a relish, till we

find a relish come_; _and feel, that what began in fiction,

terminates in reality_. If there be in our Art anything of that

agreement or compact, such as I apprehend there is in music, with

which the Critic is necessarily required previously to be acquainted,

in order to form a correct judgment: the comparison with this art will

illustrate what I have said on these points, and tend to show the

probability, we may say the certainty, that men are not born with a

relish for those arts in their most refined state, which, as they

cannot understand, they cannot be impressed with their effects. This

great style of Michel Angelo is as far removed from the simple

representation of the common objects of nature, as the most refined

Italian music is from the inartificial notes of nature, from whence

they both profess to originate. But without such a supposed compact,

we may be very confident that the highest state of refinement in

either of those arts will not be relished without a long and

industrious attention.

In pursuing this great Art, it must be acknowledged that we labour

under greater difficulties than those who were born in the age of its

discovery, and whose minds from their infancy were habituated to this

style; who learned it as language, as their mother tongue. They had no

mean taste to unlearn; they needed no persuasive discourse to allure

them to a favourable reception of it, no abstruse investigation of its

principles to convince them of the great latent truths on which it is

founded. We are constrained, in these latter days, to have recourse to

a sort of Grammar and Dictionary, as the only means of recovering a

dead language. It was by them learned by rote, and perhaps better

learned that way than by precept.

The style of Michel Angelo, which I have compared to language, and

which may, poetically speaking, be called the language of the Gods,

now no longer exists, as it did in the fifteenth century; yet, with

the aid of diligence, we may in a great measure supply the deficiency

which I mentioned--of not having his works so perpetually before our

eyes--by having recourse to casts from his models and designs in

Sculpture; to drawings, or even copies of those drawings; to prints,

which, however ill executed, still convey something by which this

taste may be formed, and a relish may be fixed and established in our

minds for this grand style of invention. Some examples of this kind we

have in the Academy, and I sincerely wish there were more, that the

younger students might in their first nourishment imbibe this taste,

whilst others, though settled in the practice of the commonplace style

of Painters, might infuse, by this means, a grandeur into their works.

I shall now make some remarks on the course which I think most proper

to be pursued in such a study. I wish you not to go so much to the

derivative streams, as to the fountain-head; though the copies are not

to be neglected; because they may give you hints in what manner you

may copy; and how the genius of one man may be made to fit the

peculiar manner of another.

To recover this lost taste, I would recommend young Artists to study

the works of Michel Angelo, as he himself did the works of the ancient

Sculptors; he began when a child a copy of a mutilated Satyr's head,

and finished in his model what was wanting in the original. In the

same manner, the first exercise that I would recommend to the young

artist when he first attempts invention is, to select every figure, if

possible, from the inventions of Michel Angelo. If such borrowed

figures will not bend to his purpose, and he is constrained to make a

change to supply a figure himself, that figure will necessarily be in

the same style with the rest; and his taste will by this means be

naturally initiated, and nursed in the lap of grandeur. He will sooner

perceive what constitutes this grand style by one practical trial than

by a thousand speculations, and he will in some sort procure to

himself the advantage which in these later ages has been denied

him--the advantage of having the greatest of Artists for his master

and instructor.

The next lesson should be, to change the purpose of the figures

without changing the attitude, as Tintoret has done with the Samson of

Michel Angelo. Instead of the figure which Samson bestrides, he has

placed an eagle under him: and instead of the jaw-bone, thunder and

lightning in his right hand; and thus it becomes a Jupiter. Titian, in

the same manner, has taken the figure which represents God dividing

the light from the darkness in the vault of the Capella Sestina, and

has introduced it in the famous battle of Cadore, so much celebrated

by Vasari; and extraordinary as it may seem, it is here converted to a

general falling from his horse. A real judge who should look at this

picture would immediately pronounce the attitude of that figure to be

in a greater style than any other figure of the composition. These two

instances may be sufficient, though many more might be given in their

works, as well as in those of other great Artists.

When the Student has been habituated to this grand conception of the

Art, when the relish for this style is established, makes a part of

himself, and is woven into his mind, he will, by this time, have got a

power of selecting from whatever occurs in nature that is grand, and

corresponds with that taste which he has now acquired, and will pass

over whatever is commonplace and insipid. He may then bring to the

mart such works of his own proper invention as may enrich and increase

the general stock of invention in our Art.

I am confident of the truth and propriety of the advice which I have

recommended; at the same time I am aware how much by this advice I

have laid myself open to the sarcasms of those critics who imagine our

Art to be a matter of inspiration. But I should be sorry it should

appear even to myself that I wanted that courage which I have

recommended to the Students in another way; equal courage, perhaps, is

required in the adviser and the advised; they both must equally dare

and bid defiance to narrow criticism and vulgar opinion.

That the Art has been in a gradual state of decline, from the age of

Michel Angelo to the present, must be acknowledged; and we may

reasonably impute this declension to the same cause to which the

ancient Critics and Philosophers have imputed the corruption of

eloquence. Indeed, the same causes are likely at all times and in all

ages to produce the same effects; indolence--not taking the same pains

as our great predecessors took--desiring to find a shorter way--are

the general imputed causes. The words of Petronius[19] are very

remarkable. After opposing the natural chaste beauty of the eloquence

of former ages to the strained, inflated style then in fashion,

"neither," says he, "has the Art of Painting had a better fate, after

the boldness of the Egyptians had found out a compendious way to

execute so great an art."

By _compendious_, I understand him to mean a mode of Painting such as

has infected the style of the later Painters of Italy and France;

commonplace, without thought, and with as little trouble, working as

by a receipt; in contradistinction to that style for which even a

relish cannot be acquired without care and long attention, and most

certainly the power of executing cannot be obtained without the most

laborious application.

I have endeavoured to stimulate the ambition of Artists to tread in

this great path of glory, and, as well as I can, have pointed out the

track which leads to it, and have at the same time told them the price

at which it may be obtained. It is an ancient saying, that labour is

the price which the gods have set upon everything valuable.

The great Artist who has been so much the subject of the present

Discourse, was distinguished even from his infancy for his

indefatigable diligence; and this was continued through his whole

life, till prevented by extreme old age. The poorest of men, as he

observed himself, did not labour from necessity more than he did from

choice. Indeed, from all the circumstances related of his life, he

appears not to have had the least conception that his art was to be

acquired by any other means than great labour; and yet he, of all men

that ever lived, might make the greatest pretensions to the efficacy

of native genius and inspiration. I have no doubt that he would have

thought it no disgrace that it should be said of him, as he himself

said of Raffaelle, that he did not possess his art from nature, but by

long study.[20] He was conscious that the great excellence to which he

arrived was gained by dint of labour, and was unwilling to have it

thought that any transcendent skill, however natural its effects might

seem, could be purchased at a cheaper price than he had paid for it.

This seems to have been the true drift of his observation. We cannot

suppose it made with any intention of depreciating the genius of

Raffaelle, of whom he always spoke, as Coudivi says, with the greatest

respect: though they were rivals, no such illiberality existed between

them; and Raffaelle, on his part, entertained the greatest veneration

for Michel Angelo, as appears from the speech which is recorded of

him, that he congratulated himself, and thanked God, that he was born

in the same age with that painter.

If the high esteem and veneration in which Michel Angelo has been held

by all nations and in all ages should be put to the account of

prejudice, it must still be granted that those prejudices could not have

been entertained without a cause: the ground of our prejudice, then,

becomes the source of our admiration. But from whatever it proceeds, or

whatever it is called, it will not, I hope, be thought presumptuous in

me to appear in the train, I cannot say of his imitators, but of his

admirers. I have taken another course, one more suited to my abilities,

and to the taste of the times in which I live. Yet however unequal I

feel myself to that attempt, were I now to begin the world again, I

would tread in the steps of that great master: to kiss the hem of his

garment, to catch the slightest of his perfections, would be glory and

distinction enough for an ambitious man.

I feel a self-congratulation in knowing myself capable of such

sensations as he intended to excite. I reflect, not without vanity,

that these Discourses bear testimony of my admiration of that truly

divine man; and I should desire that the last words which I should

pronounce in this Academy, and from this place, might be the name

of--MICHEL ANGELO.[21]

FOOTNOTES:

18: James Harris.

19: Pictura quoque non alium exitum fecit, postquam

Ægyptiorum audacia tam magnæ artis compendiariam invenit.

20: _Che Raffaelle non ebbe quest' arte da natura, ma per

lungo studio._

21: Unfortunately for mankind, these _were_ the last words

pronounced by this great Painter from the Academical chair. He died

about fourteen months after this Discourse was delivered.

THREE LETTERS

TO

THE IDLER.

THE IDLER.

NUMBER 76. _Saturday, September 29, 1759._

TO THE IDLER.

SIR--I was much pleased with your ridicule of those shallow Critics,

whose judgment, though often right as far as it goes, yet reaches only

to inferior beauties; and who, unable to comprehend the whole, judge

only by parts, and from thence determine the merit of extensive works.

But there is another kind of Critic still worse, who judges by narrow

rules, and those too often false, and which though they should be

true, and founded on nature, will lead him but a very little way

towards the just estimation of the sublime beauties in works of

Genius; for whatever part of an art can be executed or criticised by

rules, that part is no longer the work of Genius, which implies

excellence out of the reach of rules. For my own part, I profess

myself an Idler, and love to give my judgment, such as it is, from my

immediate perceptions, without much fatigue of thinking; and I am of

opinion, that if a man has not those perceptions right, it will be

vain for him to endeavour to supply their place by rules; which may

enable him to talk more learnedly, but not to distinguish more

acutely. Another reason which has lessened my affection for the study

of Criticism is, that Critics, so far as I have observed, debar

themselves from receiving any pleasure from the polite arts, at the

same time that they profess to love and admire them; for these rules

being always uppermost, give them such a propensity to criticise, that

instead of giving up the reins of their imagination into their

author's hands, their frigid minds are employed in examining whether

the performance be according to the rules of art.

To those who are resolved to be Critics in spite of nature, and at the

same time have no great disposition to much reading and study, I would

recommend to assume the character of Connoisseur, which may be purchased

at a much cheaper rate than that of a Critic in poetry. The remembrance

of a few names of Painters, with their general characters, and a few

rules of the Academy, which they may pick up among the Painters, will go

a great way towards making a very notable Connoisseur.

With a gentleman of this cast I visited last week the Cartoons at

Hampton Court; he was just returned from Italy, a Connoisseur, of

course, and of course his mouth full of nothing but the Grace of

Raffaelle, the Purity of Domenichino, the Learning of Poussin, the Air

of Guido, the greatness of Taste of the Caraccis, and the Sublimity

and grand Contorno of Michel Angelo; with all the rest of the cant of

Criticism, which he emitted with that volubility which generally those

orators have, who annex no ideas to their words.

As we were passing through the rooms, in our way to the Gallery, I

made him observe a whole length of Charles the First, by Vandyke, as a

perfect representation of the character as well as the figure of the

man. He agreed it was very fine, but it wanted spirit and contrast,

and had not the flowing line, without which a figure could not

possibly be graceful. When we entered the Gallery, I thought I could

perceive him recollecting his Rules by which he was to criticise

Raffaelle. I shall pass over his observation of the boats being too

little, and other criticisms of that kind, till we arrived at St.

_Paul preaching_. "This," says he, "is esteemed the most excellent of

all the Cartoons: what nobleness, what dignity there is in that figure

of St. Paul! and yet what an addition to that nobleness could

Raffaelle have given, had the art of Contrast been known in his time;

but above all, the flowing line, which constitutes Grace and Beauty!

You would not then have seen an upright figure standing equally on

both legs, and both hands stretched forward in the same direction, and

his drapery, to all appearance, without the least art of disposition."

The following Picture is the _Charge to Peter_. "Here," says he, "are

twelve upright figures; what a pity it is that Raffaelle was not

acquainted with the pyramidal principle! he would then have contrived

the figures in the middle to have been on higher ground, or the

figures at the extremities stooping or lying; which would not only

have formed the group into the shape of a pyramid, but likewise

contrasted the standing figures. Indeed," added he, "I have often

lamented that so great a genius as Raffaelle had not lived in this

enlightened age, since the art has been reduced to principles, and had

his education in one of the modern Academies; what glorious works

might we then have expected from his divine pencil!"

I shall trouble you no longer with my friend's observations, which, I

suppose, you are now able to continue by yourself. It is curious to

observe, that at the same time that great admiration is pretended for

a name of fixed reputation, objections are raised against those very

qualities by which that great name was acquired.

These Critics are continually lamenting that Raffaelle had not the

Colouring and Harmony of Rubens, or the Light and Shadow of Rembrandt,

without considering how much the gay harmony of the former, and

affectation of the latter, would take from the Dignity of Raffaelle;

and yet Rubens had great Harmony, and Rembrandt understood Light and

Shadow; but what may be an excellence in a lower class of Painting,

becomes a blemish in a higher; as the quick, sprightly turn, which is

the life and beauty of epigrammatic compositions, would but ill suit

with the majesty of heroic Poetry.

To conclude; I would not be thought to infer from anything that has

been said, that Rules are absolutely unnecessary, but to censure

scrupulosity, a servile attention to minute exactness, which is

sometimes inconsistent with higher excellence, and is lost in the

blaze of expanded genius.

I do not know whether you will think Painting a general subject. By

inserting this letter, perhaps you will incur the censure a man would

deserve, whose business being to entertain a whole room, should turn

his back on a company, and talk to a particular person.

I am, Sir, etc.

NUMBER 79. _Saturday, October 20, 1759._

TO THE IDLER.

SIR--Your acceptance of a former letter on Painting gives me

encouragement to offer a few more sketches on the same subject.

Amongst the Painters and the writers on Painting there is one maxim

universally admitted and continually inculcated. _Imitate Nature_ is

the invariable rule; but I know none who have explained in what manner

this rule is to be understood; the consequence of which is, that every

one takes it in the most obvious sense--that objects are represented

naturally, when they have such relief that they seem real. It may

appear strange, perhaps, to hear this sense of the rule disputed; but

it must be considered, that if the excellency of a Painter consisted

only in this kind of imitation, Painting must lose its rank, and be no

longer considered as a liberal art, and sister to Poetry: this

imitation being merely mechanical, in which the slowest intellect is

always sure to succeed best; for the Painter of genius cannot stoop to

drudgery, in which the understanding has no part; and what pretence

has the Art to claim kindred with Poetry, but by its power over the

imagination? To this power the Painter of genius directs his aim; in

this sense he studies Nature, and often arrives at his end, even by

being unnatural, in the confined sense of the word.

The grand style of Painting requires this minute attention to be

carefully avoided, and must be kept as separate from it as the style of

Poetry from that of History. Poetical ornaments destroy that air of

truth and plainness which ought to characterise History; but the very

being of Poetry consists in departing from this plain narration, and

adopting every ornament that will warm the imagination. To desire to see

the excellencies of each style united, to mingle the Dutch with the

Italian School, is to join contrarieties which cannot subsist together,

and which destroy the efficacy of each other. The Italian attends only

to the invariable, the great and general ideas which are fixed and

inherent in universal Nature; the Dutch, on the contrary, to literal

truth and a minute exactness in the detail, as I may say, of Nature,

modified by accident. The attention to these petty peculiarities is the

very cause of this naturalness so much admired in the Dutch pictures,

which, if we suppose it to be a beauty is certainly of a lower order,

that ought to give place to a beauty of a superior kind, since one

cannot be obtained but by departing from the other.

If my opinion were asked concerning the works of Michel Angelo, whether

they would receive any advantage from possessing this mechanical merit,

I should not scruple to say they would lose, in a great measure, the

effect which they now have on every mind susceptible of great and noble

ideas. His works may be said to be all genius and soul; and why should

they be loaded with heavy matter, which can only counteract his purpose

by retarding the progress of the imagination?

Sir Joshua Reynolds' Discourses Edited, with an Introduction, by Helen Zimmern · 第 21 / 22 段