DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.20658#0192
178
DISPOSITION.
ings in the mind of the spectator, and force him in some degree to forget that it is a representation
and not the reality of the subject.
As in imitating nature we are by no means to take any individual object, as it really exists in
nature around us, for our model; but to select, from the whole species of objects, all such parti-
culars as possess the greatest excellence; so in the arrangement of a piece of painting we are to
choose and draw together whatever circumstances or allusions may seem to have the most power-
ful tendency to convey to the observer those sensations and ideas which .we desire to excite.
It is the business, nay the duty of the naturalist and historian to represent objects and facts
correctly and precisely as they exist or occur, with all their blemishes or imperfections: but the
painter, who ought to be an ideal historian, resembles the poet, who does not copy but imitates
the objects with which he is conversant: that is, he works by his imagination, and represents
objects and events with all the perfection of which they are susceptible. This proceeding is
deeply rooted in our nature. By habit we come to associate certain ideas together, which have
not always a necessary connexion with each other. The painter must therefore be most careful
to present no object nor feature, to the spectator, which by these associations can recall to his
mind sensations either contrary or merely foreign to the great scope of his piece; at the same
time that he introduces all such circumstances as are calculated to produce the effects he has in
view. Here La belle Nature, as the French call it, nature methodised and made perfect, must
he his guide. Hence circumstances of the subject, exalted to the highest degree of beauty and
sublimity of which they are susceptible, although they never really happened, are fully entitled
to appear in the works of the painter of genius and taste. It is in this part of their several arts
that the poet (or maker, as he was formerly very properly termed) and painter resemble each
other : and they are both enabled to throw into their productions more of the spirit of philoso-
phic instruction and entertainment than the historian.
In the composition of their works the ancient poets and painters had many advantages over
the moderns, from their mythological system which warranted the introduction of supernatural
beings, not only allegoricaily but as real actors in the scenes described and represented : a prac-
tice which gave a wonderful animation to their productions, and facility in conveying to the
minds of their admirers the precise conception it was their wish to excite. So far were their
gods from being immortal, and placed at an infinite distance from their worshippers ; so far was
their religion from recommending humility and self-denial, that on the contrary it appeared cal-
culated merely to flatter the senses, to inflame the passions, and to poison the imagination.
Besides, their deities were in a manner visible, and to be met with at every step. The sea was
crowded with Tritons and Nereids, the rivers with Naiads, the mountains with Dryads, and the
woods and fields with Nymphs and Fauns. The most powerful empires, the most noble families,
the most celebrated heroes, ail derived their origin from one or other of their divinities. Nay,
the gods themselves took a visible interest, and frequently mingled in the concerns of men. By
the use of this machinery the ancients had a command of the imagination, which no modern
artist can hope to attain.
There have not been wanting however many masters of invention, even among the moderns.
Michael Angelo, as did his predecessors in the art, Phidias and Apelies, enriched his produc-
tions by hints and ideas collected from the greatest poets, and threw into his works an animation,
an expression, a language, if we may so speak, which has never been equalled. Raphael, by a
similar
DISPOSITION.
ings in the mind of the spectator, and force him in some degree to forget that it is a representation
and not the reality of the subject.
As in imitating nature we are by no means to take any individual object, as it really exists in
nature around us, for our model; but to select, from the whole species of objects, all such parti-
culars as possess the greatest excellence; so in the arrangement of a piece of painting we are to
choose and draw together whatever circumstances or allusions may seem to have the most power-
ful tendency to convey to the observer those sensations and ideas which .we desire to excite.
It is the business, nay the duty of the naturalist and historian to represent objects and facts
correctly and precisely as they exist or occur, with all their blemishes or imperfections: but the
painter, who ought to be an ideal historian, resembles the poet, who does not copy but imitates
the objects with which he is conversant: that is, he works by his imagination, and represents
objects and events with all the perfection of which they are susceptible. This proceeding is
deeply rooted in our nature. By habit we come to associate certain ideas together, which have
not always a necessary connexion with each other. The painter must therefore be most careful
to present no object nor feature, to the spectator, which by these associations can recall to his
mind sensations either contrary or merely foreign to the great scope of his piece; at the same
time that he introduces all such circumstances as are calculated to produce the effects he has in
view. Here La belle Nature, as the French call it, nature methodised and made perfect, must
he his guide. Hence circumstances of the subject, exalted to the highest degree of beauty and
sublimity of which they are susceptible, although they never really happened, are fully entitled
to appear in the works of the painter of genius and taste. It is in this part of their several arts
that the poet (or maker, as he was formerly very properly termed) and painter resemble each
other : and they are both enabled to throw into their productions more of the spirit of philoso-
phic instruction and entertainment than the historian.
In the composition of their works the ancient poets and painters had many advantages over
the moderns, from their mythological system which warranted the introduction of supernatural
beings, not only allegoricaily but as real actors in the scenes described and represented : a prac-
tice which gave a wonderful animation to their productions, and facility in conveying to the
minds of their admirers the precise conception it was their wish to excite. So far were their
gods from being immortal, and placed at an infinite distance from their worshippers ; so far was
their religion from recommending humility and self-denial, that on the contrary it appeared cal-
culated merely to flatter the senses, to inflame the passions, and to poison the imagination.
Besides, their deities were in a manner visible, and to be met with at every step. The sea was
crowded with Tritons and Nereids, the rivers with Naiads, the mountains with Dryads, and the
woods and fields with Nymphs and Fauns. The most powerful empires, the most noble families,
the most celebrated heroes, ail derived their origin from one or other of their divinities. Nay,
the gods themselves took a visible interest, and frequently mingled in the concerns of men. By
the use of this machinery the ancients had a command of the imagination, which no modern
artist can hope to attain.
There have not been wanting however many masters of invention, even among the moderns.
Michael Angelo, as did his predecessors in the art, Phidias and Apelies, enriched his produc-
tions by hints and ideas collected from the greatest poets, and threw into his works an animation,
an expression, a language, if we may so speak, which has never been equalled. Raphael, by a
similar