unaided art, and dost represent various places and the forms of diverse
objects, the painter surpasses thee by an infinite degree of power; but
if thou wishest to have recourse to the aid of other sciences, apart
from poetry, they are not thy own; for instance, astrology, rhetoric,
theology, philosophy, geometry, arithmetic and the like. Thou art not
then a poet any longer. Thou transformest thyself, and art no longer
that of which we are speaking. Now seest thou not that if thou wishest
to go to nature, thou reachest her by the means of science, deduced by
others from the effects of nature? And the painter, through himself
alone, without the aid of aught appertaining to the various sciences,
or by any other means, achieves directly the imitation of the things of
nature. By painting, lovers are attracted to the images of the beloved
to converse with the depicted semblance. By painting whole populations
are led with fervent vows to seek the image of the deities, and not to
see the books of poets which represent the same deities in speech; by
painting animals are deceived. I once saw a picture which deceived a
dog by the image of its master, which the dog greeted with great joy;
and likewise I have seen dogs bark at and try to bite painted dogs; and
a monkey make a number of antics in front of a painted monkey. I have
seen swallows fly and alight on painted {68} iron-works which jut out
of the windows of buildings.
[Sidenote: Superiority of Painting to Philosophy]
12.
Painting includes in its range the surface, colour and shape of
anything created by nature; and philosophy penetrates into the same
bodies and takes note of their essential virtue, but it is not
satisfied with that truth, as is the painter, who seizes hold of the
primary truth of such bodies because the eye is less prone to deception.
[Sidenote: Painting & Poetry]
13.
Poetry surpasses painting in the representation of words, and in the
representation of actions painting excels poetry; and painting is to
poetry as actions are to words, because actions depend on the eye and
words on the ear; and thus the senses are in the same proportion one to
another as the objects on which they depend; and on this account I
consider painting to be superior to poetry. But since those who
practised painting were for long ignorant as to how to explain its
theory, it lacked advocates for a considerable time; because it does
not speak itself, but reveals itself and ends in action, and poetry
ends in words, which in its vainglory it employs for self-praise.
[Sidenote: Painting is Mute Poetry]
14.
What poet will place before thee in words, O {69} lover, the true
semblance of thy idea with such truth as will the painter? Who is he
who will show thee rivers, woods, valleys and plains, which will recall
to thee the pleasures of the past, with greater truth than the painter?
And if thou sayest that painting is mute poetry in itself, unless there
be some one to speak for it and tell what it represents--seest thou
not, then, that thy book is on a lower plane? Because even if it have
a man to speak for it, nothing of the subject which is related can be
seen, as it is seen when a picture is explained. And the pictures, if
the action represented and the mental attributes of the figures are in
the true proportion one to another, will be understood in the same way
as if they spoke.
15.
Painting is mute poetry, and poetry is blind painting. Therefore these
two forms of poetry, or rather these two forms of painting, have
exchanged the senses through which they should reach the intellect.
Because if they are both of them painting, they must reach the brain by
the noblest sense, namely, the eye; if they are both of them poetry,
they must reach the brain by the less noble sense, that is, the
hearing. Therefore we will appoint the man born deaf to be judge of
painting, and the man born blind to be judge of poetry; and if in the
painting the movements are appropriate {70} to the mental attributes of
the figures which is are engaged in any kind of action, there is no
doubt that the deaf man will understand the action and intentions of
the figures, but the blind man will never understand what the poet
shows, and what constitutes the glory of the poetry; since one of the
noblest functions of its art is to describe the deeds and the subjects
of stories, and adorned and delectable places with transparent waters
in which the green recesses of their course can be seen as the waves
disport themselves over meadows and fine pebbles, and the plants which
are mingled with them, and the gliding fishes, and similar
descriptions, which might just as well be made to a stone as to a man
born blind, since he has never seen that which composes the beauty of
the world, that is, light, darkness, colour, body, shape, place,
distance, propinquity, motion and rest, which are the ten ornaments of
nature.
But the deaf man, lacking the less noble sense, although he has at the
same time lost the gift of speech, since never having heard words
spoken he never has been able to learn any language, will nevertheless
perfectly understand every attribute of the human body better than a
man who can speak and hear; and likewise he will know the works of
painters and what is represented in them, and the action which is
appropriate to such figures.
{71}
[Sidenote: Painting is Mute Poetry]
16.
Painting is mute poetry, and poetry is blind painting, and both imitate
nature to the best of their powers, and both can demonstrate moral
principles, as Apelles did in his Calumny. And since painting
ministers to the most noble of the senses, the eye, a harmonious
proportion ensues from it, that is to say, that just as from the
concord of many diverse voices at the same moment there ensues a
well-proportioned harmony which will please the sense of hearing to
such an extent that the listeners in dizzy admiration are like men half
ravished of their senses, still greater will be the effect of the
beautiful proportions of a celestial face in a picture from whose
proportions a harmonious concord will ensue, which delights the eye in
one moment, just as music delights the ear. And if this harmonious
beauty is shown to one who is the lover of the woman from whom such
great beauty has been copied, he will most certainly be struck dizzy
with admiration and incomparable joy superior to that afforded by all
the other senses.
But with regard to poetry, which in order to afford the representation
of a perfect beauty is obliged to describe each separate part in
detail,--a representation which in painting produces the harmony
described above,--no further charm is produced than would occur in
music if each voice {72} were to be heard separately at various
intervals of time, whence no concord would ensue; just as if we wished
to show a countenance bit by bit, always covering up the parts already
shown, forgetfulness would prevent the production of any harmonious
concord, since the eye could not apprehend the parts with its visual
faculty at the same moment. The same thing occurs in the beauty of any
object created by the poet, for as its parts are related separately, at
separate times the memory receives no harmony from it.
[Sidenote: The Impression of Painting]
17.
Painting reveals itself immediately to thee with the semblance given it
by its creator, and affords to the chief of the senses as great a
delight as any object created by nature. And the poet in this case
reveals the same objects to the brain by the channel of the hearing,
the inferior sense, and affords the eye no more pleasure than it
derives from anything which is related. Now consider what a difference
there is between hearing the recital of a thing which in the course of
time gives pleasure to the eye, and perceiving it with the same
velocity with which we apprehend the works of nature.
And in addition to the fact that a long interval of time is necessary
to read the works of the poets, it often occurs that they are not
understood, and it is necessary to make diverse {73} comments on them,
and it is exceedingly rare that the commentators are agreed as to the
meaning of the poet; and often the readers peruse but a small portion
of their works, owing to lack of time. But the works of the painter
are immediately understood by those who behold them.
18.
Painting manifests its essence to thee in an instant of time,--its
essence by the visual faculty, the very means by which the perception
apprehends natural objects, and in the same duration of time,--and in
this space of time the sense-satisfying harmony of the proportion of
the parts composing the whole is formed. And poetry apprehends the
same things, but by a sense inferior to that of the eyesight, which
bears the images of the objects named to the perception with greater
confusion and less speed. Not in such wise acts the eye (the true
intermediary between the object and the perception), for it immediately
communicates the true semblance and image of what is represented before
it with the greatest accuracy; whence that proportion arises called
harmony, which with sweet concord delights the sense in the same way as
the harmony of diverse voices delights the ear; and this harmony is
less worthy than that which delights the eye, because for every part of
it that is born a part dies, and it dies as fast as it is born. This
{74} cannot occur in the case of the eye; because if thou presentest a
beautiful living mortal to the eye, composed of a harmony of fair
limbs, its beauty is not so transient nor so quickly destroyed as that
of music; on the contrary it has permanent duration, and allows thee to
behold and consider it; and it is not reborn as in the case of music
which is played many times over, nor will it weary thee: on the
contrary, thou becomest enamoured with it, and the result it produces
is that all the senses, together with the eye, would wish to possess
it, and it seems that they would wish to compete with the eye: it
appears that the mouth desires it for itself, if the mouth can be
considered as a sense; the ear takes pleasure in hearing its beauty;
the sense of touch would like to penetrate into all its pores; the nose
also would like to receive the air it exhales.
Time in a few years destroys this harmony, but this does not occur in
the case of beauty depicted by the painter, because time preserves it
for long; and the eye, as far as its function is concerned, receives as
much pleasure from the depicted as from the living beauty; touch alone
is lacking to the painted beauty,--touch, which is the elder brother of
sight; which after it has attained its purpose does not prevent the
reason from considering the divine beauty. And in this case the
picture copied from the living beauty acts for the greater part as a
substitute; and the {75} description of the poet cannot accomplish
this.--the poet who is now set up as a rival to the painter, but does
not perceive that time sets a division between the words in which he
describes the various parts of the beauty, and that forgetfulness
intervenes and divides the proportions which he cannot name without
great prolixity; he cannot compose the harmonious concord which is
formed of divine proportions. And on this account beauty cannot be
described in the same space of time in which a painted beauty can be
seen, and it is a sin against nature to attempt to transmit by the ear
that which should be transmitted by the eye.
What prompts thee, O man, to abandon thy habitations in the city, to
leave thy parents and friends, and to seek rural spots in the mountains
and valleys, if it be not the natural beauty of the world, which, if
thou reflectest, thou dost enjoy solely by means of the sense of sight?
And if the poet wishes to be called a painter in this connection also,
why didst thou not take the descriptions of places made by the poet and
remain at home without exposing thyself to the heat of the sun? Oh!
would not this have been more profitable and less fatiguing to thee,
since this can be done in the cool without motion and danger of
illness? But the soul could not enjoy the benefit of the eyes, the
windows of its dwelling, and it could not note the character of joyous
{76} places; it could not see the shady valleys watered by the
sportiveness of the winding rivers; it could not see the various
flowers, which with their colours make a harmony for the eye, and all
the other objects which the eye can apprehend. But if the painter in
the cold and rigorous season of winter can evoke for thee the
landscapes, variegated and otherwise, in which thou didst experience
thy happiness; if near some fountain thou canst see thyself, a lover
with thy beloved, in the flowery fields, under the soft shadow of the
budding boughs, wilt thou not experience a greater pleasure than in
hearing the same effect described by the poet?
Here the poet answers, admitting these arguments; but he maintains that
he surpasses the painter, because he causes men to speak and reason in
diverse fictions, in which he invents things which do not exist, and
that he will incite men to take arms, and describe the heavens, the
stars, nature, and the arts and everything.
To which we reply that none of these things of which he speaks is his
true profession; but if he wishes to speak and make orations, it can be
shown that he is surpassed by the orator in this province; and if he
speaks of astrology, that he has stolen the subject of the astrologer;
and in the case of philosophy, of the philosopher; and that in reality
poetry has no true position and merits no more consideration than a
shopkeeper {77} who collects goods made by various workmen. As soon as
the poet ceases to represent by means of words the phenomena of nature,
he then ceases to act as a painter, because if the poet leaves such
representation and describes the flowery and persuasive speech of him
to whom he wishes to give speech, he then becomes an orator, and
neither a poet nor a painter; and if he speaks of the heavens he
becomes an astrologer, and a philosopher and a theologian if he
discourses of nature or God; but if he returns to the description of
any object he would rival the painter, if with words he could satisfy
the eye as the painter does.
But the spirit of the science of painting deals with all works, human
as well as divine, which are terminated by their surfaces, that is, the
lines of the limits of bodies by means of which the sculptor is
required to achieve perfection in his art. She with her fundamental
rules, i.e. drawing, teaches the architect how to work so that his
building may be pleasant to the eye; she teaches the makers of diverse
vases, the goldsmiths, weavers, embroiderers; she has found the
characters with which diverse languages find expression; she has given
symbols to the mathematicians; she has taught geometry its figures, and
instructed the astrologers, the makers of machines and engineers.
[Sidenote: Poet and Painter]
19.
The poet says that his science consists of {78} invention and rhythm,
and this is the simple body of poetry, invention as regards the subject
matter and rhythm as regards the verse, which he afterwards clothes
with all the sciences. To which the painter rejoins that he is
governed by the same necessities in the science of painting, that is to
say, invention and measure (fancy as regards the subject matter which
he must invent, and measure as regards the matters painted), so that
they may be in proportion, but that he does not make use of three
sciences; on the contrary it is rather the other sciences that make use
of painting, as, for instance, astrology, which effects nothing without
the aid of perspective, the principal link of painting,--that is,
mathematical astronomy and not fallacious astrology (let those who by
reason of the existence of fools make a profession of it, forgive me).
The poet says he describes an object, that he represents another full
of beautiful allegory; the painter says he is capable of doing the
same, and in this respect he is also a poet. And if the poet says he
can incite men to love, which is the most important fact among every
kind of animal, the painter can do the same, all the more so because he
presents the lover with the image of his beloved; and the lover often
does with it what he would not do with the writer's delineation of the
same charms, i.e. talk with it and kiss it; so great is the painter's
influence on the minds of men that he incites them to love and {79}
become enamoured of a picture which does not represent any living woman.
And if the poet pleases the sense by means of the ear, the painter does
so by the eye, which is the superior sense. I will enlarge no further
on this theme save to say that if a good painter were to represent the
fury of a battle, and if the poet were to describe one, and both
representations were put before the public together, you will see
before which of the two most of the spectators will stop, to which of
the two they will pay most attention, which of the two will be the most
praised and give the greater satisfaction. Without any doubt, the
painting, being infinitely the most beautiful and useful, will please
the most. Write the name of God in some spot, and set up His image
opposite, and you will see which will be the most reverenced. While
painting embraces in itself all the forms of nature, you have nothing
save words, which are not universal, like forms. If you have the
effects of the representation, we have the representation of the
effects. Take a poet who describes the charms of a woman to her lover,
and a painter who represents her, and you will see whither nature leads
the enamoured critic. Certainly the proof should rest on the verdict
of experience. You have classed painting among the mechanical arts,
but, truly, if painters were as apt at praising their own works in
writing as you are, it would not lie under the stigma {80} of so
unhonoured an name. If you call it mechanical because it is by manual
work and that the hand represents the conception of the imagination,
you writers put down with the pen the conceptions of your mind. And if
you say that it is mechanical because it is done for money, who is more
guilty of this error--if error it can be called--than you? If you
lecture in the schools, do you not go to whomsoever rewards you most?
Do you perform any work without some pay? Although I do not say this
to blame such opinions, because all labour expects its reward; and if a
poet were to say: "I will devise with my fancy a work which shall be
pregnant with meaning," the painter can do the same, as Apelles did
when he painted The Calumny.
[Sidenote: King Matthias & the Poet]
20.
On the birthday of King Matthias, a poet brought him a work made in
praise of the royal birthday for the benefit of the world, and a
painter presented him with a portrait of his lady-love. The king
immediately shut the book of the poet and turned to the picture, and
remained gazing on it with profound admiration. Then the poet, greatly
slighted, said: "O king, read, read, and thou wilt hear something of
far greater substance than a dumb picture!" Then the king, hearing
himself blamed for contemplating a mute object, said: "O poet, be
silent, thou knowest not what thou {81} sayest; this picture gratifies
a nobler sense than thy work, which is for the blind. Give me an
object which I can see and touch and not only hear, and blame not my
choice in having placed thy work beneath my elbow, while I hold the
work of the painter with both my hands before my eyes, because my very
hands have chosen to serve a worthier sense than that of hearing.
"And as for my self I consider that the same proportion exists between
the art of the painter and that of the poet as that which exists
between the two senses on which they respectively depend.
"Knowest thou not that our soul is composed of harmony, and harmony can
only be begotten in the moments when the proportions of objects are
simultaneously visible and audible? Seest thou not that in thine art
there is no harmony created in a moment, and that, on the contrary,
each part follows from the other in succession, and the second is not
born before its predecessor dies. For this reason I consider thy
creation to be considerably inferior to that of the painter, simply
because no harmonious concord ensues from it. It does not satisfy the
mind of the spectator or the listener, as the harmony of the perfect
features which compose the divine beauty of this face which is before
me; for the features united all together simultaneously afford me a
pleasure which I consider to be unsurpassed by any other thing on the
earth which is made by man."
{82}
[Sidenote: Value of the Visible Universe]
21.
There is no one so foolish who if offered the choice between
everlasting blindness and deafness would not immediately elect to lose
both his hearing and sense of smell rather than to be blind. Since he
who loves his sight is deprived of the beauty of the world and all
created things, and the deaf man loves only the sound made by the
percussion of the air, which is an insignificant thing in the world.
Thou sayest that science increases in nobility in proportion as the
subjects with which it deals are more elevated, and, for this reason, a
false rendering of the being of God is better than the portrayal of a
less worthy object; and on this account we will say that painting,
which deals alone with the works of God, is worth more than poetry,
which deals solely with the lying imaginings of human devices.
[Sidenote: Poet and Painter]
22.
Thou sayest, O painter, that worship is paid to thy work, but impute
not this power to thyself, but to the subject which such a picture
represents. Here the painter makes answer: O thou poet, who sayest
that thou also art an imitator, why dost thou not represent with thy
words objects of such a nature that thy writings which contain these
words may be worshipped also? But nature has favoured the painter more
than the poet, {83} and it is fair that the works of the more greatly
favoured one should be more honoured than those of the less favoured
one. Therefore let us praise him who with words satisfies the hearing,
and him who by painting affords perfect content to the eyes; but let
the praise given to the worker in words be less, inasmuch as they are
accidental and created by a less worthy author than the works of nature
of which the painter is the imitator. And the existence of these works
is confined within the forms of their surfaces.
23.
Since we have concluded that the utmost extent of the comprehension of
poetry is for the blind, and that of painting for the deaf, we will say
that the value of painting exceeds that of poetry in proportion as
painting gratifies a nobler sense than poetry does, and this nobility
has been proved to be equal to that of three other senses, because we
elect to lose our sense of hearing, smell and touch rather than our
eyesight. For he who loses his sight is deprived of the beauty of the
universe, and is like to one who is confined during his lifetime in a
tomb, in which he enjoys life and motion.