With regard to our external fenfes, this diverfity of feeling, as far as it occurs, is of little confequence; but the truth of perception, in our internal fenfes, employed in morals and criticism, is more interesting and important.

In the judgements we form concerning the beauty and excellency of the feveral imitative arts, this difference of feeling is very confpicuous; and 'tis difficult to say why each man may not believe his own, or how a standard may be established, by which the truth of different judgements may be compared and tried. Whether there is, or is not, a standard of tafte, I fhall not attempt to determine; but there is a queftion connected with that, which, properly answered, may have fome effect in the decision: Whether, in the imitative arts, a perfon exercifed in the practice of the art, or in the frequent contemplation of its productions, be better qualified to judge of thefe, than a perfon who only feels the direct and immediate effects of it? In the words of an ancient critic, An dofti, qui rationem operis intelligunt, an qui voluptatem tantum percipiunt, optime dijudicant; or, as I may exprefs it in English, Whether the artist or connoiffeur have

any

any advantage over other perfons of common sense or common feeling?

This question fhall be confidered at present with regard to one art only, to wit, that of painting; but fome of the principles which I shall endeavour to illuftrate, will have a general tendency to establish a decifion in all. In the first place, it is proper to mention the chief fources of the pleasure we receive in viewing pictures. One arifes from the perception of imitation, however produced; a fecond from the art difplayed in producing fuch imitation; and a third, from the beauty, grace, agreeablenefs, and propriety of the object imitated. Thefe may all occur in the imitation of one fingle object; but a much higher pleafure arifes from feveral objects combined together in fuch a manner, that, while each of them fingly affords the several fources of pleasure already mentioned, they all unite in producing one effect, one particular emotion in the fpectator, and an impreffion much stronger than could have been raifed by one object alone.

Thefe feem to be the chief fources of the pleasure we receive from pictures; and, with regard to the true and accurate perceptions

of each, let us confider who is most likely toơ form them, the painter and connoiffeur, or the unexperienced spectator.

In viewing imitation, we are more or lefs pleafed according to the degree of exactness with which the object is expreffed; and, fuppofing the object to be a common one, it might be imagined, that every perfon would be equally a judge of the exactness of the imitation; but, in truth, it is otherwife. Our recollection of an object does not depend upon any fecret remembrance of the feveral parts of which it confifts, of the exact pofition of thefe, or of the dimenfions of the whole. A very inaccurate refemblance ferves the purpofe of memory, and will often pafs with us for a true reprefentation, even of the fubjects that we fancy ourselves very well acquainted with.

The felf applaufe of Zeuxis was not well founded when he valued himself on having painted grapes that fo far deceived the birds as to bring them to peck at his picture. Birds are no judges of an accurate resemblance, when they often miftake a scare-crow for a Nor had Parrhafius much reafon to boaft of his deceiving even Zeuxis, who, viewing it hastily, and from a distance, mistook

man.

the

the picture of a linen-cloth for a real one. It always requires ftudy to perceive the exactnefs of imitation; and most perfons may find, by daily experience, that, when they would examine the accuracy of any reprefentation, they can hardly do it properly, but by bringing together the picture and its archetype, fo that they may quickly pafs from the one to the other, and thereby compare the form, fize, and proportions of all the different parts. Without such study of objects as the painter employs to imitate them, or the connoiffeur employs in comparing them with their imitations, there is no perfon can be a judge of the exactnefs of the reprefentation. The painters, therefore, or the connoiffeurs, are the perfons who will beft perceive the truth of imitation, and beft judge of its merit. It is true, fome perfons may be acquainted with certain objects, even better than the painters themselves, as the shoemaker was with the fhoe in the picture of Apelles; but moft perfons, like the fame fhoemaker, are unfit to extend their judgement beyond their last; and muft, in other parts, yield to the more general knowledge of the painter.

As we are, in the first place, pleafed with

viewing

viewing imitation; fo we are, in the fecond place, with confidering the art by which the imitation is performed. The pleasure we derive from this, is in proportion to the difficulty we apprehend in the execution, and the degree of genius neceffary to the performance of it. But this difficulty, and the degree of genius exerted in furmounting it, can only be well known to the perfons exercised in the practice of the art.

When a perfon has acquired an exact idea of an object, there is ftill a great difficulty in expreffing that correctly upon his canvafs. With regard to objects of a steady figure, they may perhaps be imitated by an ordinary artift; but tranfient objects, of a momentary appearance, require ftill a nicer hand. To catch the more delicate expreffions of the human foul, requires an art of which few are poffeffed, and none can fufficiently admire but those who have themselves attempted it. These are the difficulties of painting, in forming even a correct outline; and the painter has yet more to struggle with. To represent a folid upon a plain furface, by the position and fize of the feveral parts; to be exact in the perfpective; by these, and by the diftribution of