like　Tintoret；　his　strange　whims　are　even　beyond　extravagance；　and　his　works　seem　to　be　produced　rather　by　chance　than　in　consequence　of　any　previous　design；　as　if　he　wanted　to　convince　the　world　that；　the　art　was　a　trifle；　and　of　the　most　easy　attainment。〃
  For　my　own　part；　when　I　speak　of　the　Venetian　painters；　I　wish　to　be　understood　to　mean　Paulo　Veronese　and　Tintoret；　to　the　exclusion　of　Titian；　for　though　his　style　is　not　so　pure　as　that　of　many　other　of　the　Italian　schools；　yet　there　is　a　sort　of　senatorial　dignity　about　him；　which；　however　awkward　in　his　imitators；　seems　to　become　him　exceedingly。　　His　portraits　alone；　from　the　nobleness　and　simplicity　of　character　which　he　always　gave　them；　will　entitle　him　to　the　greatest　respect；　as　he　undoubtedly　stands　in　the　first　rank　in　this　branch　of　the　art。
  It　is　not　with　Titian；　but　with　the　seducing　qualities　of　the　two　former；　that　I　could　wish　to　caution　you；　against　being　too　much　captivated。　　These　are　the　persons　who　may　be　said　to　have　exhausted　all　the　powers　of　florid　eloquence；　to　debauch　the　young　and　unexperienced；　and　have；　without　doubt；　been　the　cause　of　turning　off　the　attention　of　the　connoisseur　and　of　the　patron　of　art；　as　well　as　that　of　the　painter；　from　those　higher　excellences　of　which　the　art　is　capable；　and　which　ought　to　be　required　in　every　considerable　production。　　By　them；　and　their　imitators；　a　style　merely　ornamental　has　been　disseminated　throughout　all　Europe。　　Rubens　carried　it　to　Flanders；　Voet　to　France；　and　Luca　Giordano　to　Spain　and　Naples。
  The　Venetian　is　indeed　the　most　splendid　of　the　schools　of　elegance；　and　it　is　not　without　reason　that　the　best　performances　in　this　lower　school　are　valued　higher　than　the　second…rate　performances　of　those　above　them；　for　every　picture　has　value　when　it　has　a　decided　character；　and　is　excellent　in　its　kind。　　But　the　student　must　take　care　not　to　be　so　much　dazzled　with　this　splendour　as　to　be　tempted　to　imitate　what　must　ultimately　lead　from　perfection。　　Poussin；　whose　eye　was　always　steadily　fixed　on　the　sublime；　has　been　often　heard　to　say；　〃That　a　particular　attention　to　colouring　was　an　obstacle　to　the　student　in　his　progress　to　the　great　end　and　design　of　the　art；　and　that　he　who　attaches　himself　to　this　principal　end　will　acquire　by　practice　a　reasonably　good　method　of　colouring。〃
  Though　it　be　allowed　that　elaborate　harmony　of　colouring；　a　brilliancy　of　tints；　a　soft　and　gradual　transition　from　one　to　another；　present　to　the　eye　what　an　harmonious　concert　of　music　does　to　the　ear；　it　must　be　remembered　that　painting　is　not　merely　a　gratification　of　the　sight。　　Such　excellence；　though　properly　cultivated　where　nothing　higher　than　elegance　is　intended；　is　weak　and　unworthy　of　regard；　when　the　work　aspires　to　grandeur　and　sublimity。
  The　same　reasons　that　have　been　urged　why　a　mixture　of　the　Venetian　style　cannot　improve　the　great　style　will　hold　good　in　regard　to　the　Flemish　and　Dutch　schools。　　Indeed；　the　Flemish　school；　of　which　Rubens　is　the　head；　was　formed　upon　that　of　the　Venetian；　like　them；　he　took　his　figures　too　much　from　the　people　before　him。　But　it　must　be　allowed　in　favour　of　the　Venetians　that　he　was　more　gross　than　they；　and　carried　all　their　mistaken　methods　to　a　far　greater　excess。　　In　the　Venetian　school　itself；　where　they　all　err　from　the　same　cause；　there　is　a　difference　in　the　effect。　　The　difference　between　Paulo　and　Bassano　seems　to　be　only　that　one　introduced　Venetian　gentlemen　into　his　pictures；　and　the　other　the　boors　of　the　district　of　Bassano；　and　called　them　patriarchs　and　prophets。
  The　painters　of　the　Dutch　school　have　still　more　locality。　　With　them；　a　history　piece　is　properly　a　portrait　of　themselves；　whether　they　describe　the　inside　or　outside　of　their　houses；　we　have　their　own　people　engaged　in　their　own　peculiar　occupations；　working　or　drinking；　playing　or　fighting。　　The　circumstances　that　enter　into　a　picture　of　this　kind　are　so　far　from　giving　a　general　view　of　human　life　that　they　exhibit　all　the　minute　particularities　of　a　nation　differing　in　several　respects　from　the　rest　of　mankind。　　Yet；　let　them　have　their　share　of　more　humble　praise。　　The　painters　of　this　school　are　excellent　in　their　own　way；　they　are　only　ridiculous　when　they　attempt　general　history　on　their　own　narrow　principles；　and　debase　great　events　by　the　meanness　of　their　characters。
  Some　inferior　dexterity；　some　extraordinary　mechanical　power；　is　apparently　that　from　which　they　seek　distinction。　　Thus；　we　see；　that　school　alone　has　the　custom　of　representing　candle…light；　not　as　it　really　appears　to　us　by　night；　but　red；　as　it　would　illuminate　objects　to　a　spectator　by　day。　　Such　tricks；　however　pardonable　in　the　little　style；　where　petty　effects　are　the　sole　end；　are　inexcusable　in　the　greater；　where　the　attention　should　never　be　drawn　aside　by　trifles；　but　should　be　entirely　occupied　by　the　subject　itself。
  The　same　local　principles　which　characterise　the　Dutch　school　extend　even　to　their　landscape　painters；　and　Rubens　himself；　who　has　painted　many　landscapes；　has　sometimes　transgressed　in　this　particular。　　Their　pieces　in　this　way　are；　I　think；　always　a　representation　of　an　individual　spot；　and　each　in　its　kind　a　very　faithful　but　very　confined　portrait。
  Claude　Lorraine；　on　the　contrary；　was　convinced　that　taking　nature　as　he　found　it　seldom　produced　beauty。　　His　pictures　are　a　composition　of　the　various　draughts　which　he　has　previously　made　from　various　beautiful　scenes　and　prospects。　　However；　Rubens　in　some　measure　has　made　amends　for　the　deficiency　with　which　he　is　charged；　he　has　contrived　to　raise　and　animate　his　otherwise　uninteresting　views；　by　introducing　a　rainbow；　storm；　or　some　particular　accidental　effect　of　light。　　That　the　practice　of　Claude　Lorraine；　in　respect　to　his　choice；　is　to　be　adopted　by　landscape　painters；　in　opposition　to　that　of　the　Flemish　and　Dutch　schools；　there　can　be　no　doubt；　as　its　truth　is　founded　upon　the　same　principle　as　that　by　which　the　historical　painter　acquires　perfect　form。　　But　whether　landscape　painting　has　a　right　to　aspire　so　far　as　to　reject　what　the　painters　call　accidents　of　nature　is　not　easy　to　determine。　　It　is　certain　Claude　Lorraine　seldom；　if　ever；　availed　himself　of　those　accidents；　either　he　thought　that　such　peculiarities　were　contrary　to　that　style　of　general　nature　which　he　professed；　or　that　it　would　catch　the　attention　too　strongly；　and　destroy　that　quietness　and　repose　which　he　thought　necessary　to　that　kind　of　painting。
  A　portrait　painter　likewise；　when　he　attempts　history；　unless　he　is　upon　his　guard；　is　likely　to　enter　too　much　into　the　detail。　　He　too　frequently　makes　his　historical　heads　look　like　portraits；　and　this　was　once　the　custom　amongst　those　old　painters　who　revived　the　art　before　general　ideas　were　practised　or　understood。　　A　history　painter　paints　man　in　general；　a　portrait　painter；　a　particular　man；　and　consequently　a　defective　model。
  Thus　an　habitual　practice　in　the　lower　exercises　of　the　art　will　prevent　many　from　attaining　the　greater。　　But　such　of　us　who　move　in　these　humbler　walks　of　the　profession　are　not　ignorant　that；　as　the　natural　dignity　of　the　subject　is　less；　the　more　all　the　little　ornamental　helps　are　necessary　to　its　embellishment。　　It　would　be　ridiculous　for　a　painter　of　domestic　scenes；　of　portraits；　landscapes；　animals；　or　of　still　life；　to　say　that　he　despised　those　qualities　which　have　made　the　subordinate　schools　so　famous。　The　art　of　colouring；　and　the　skilful　management　of　light　and　shadow；　are　essential　requisites　in　his　confined　labours。　　If　we　descend　still　lower；　what　is　the　painter　of　fruit　and　flowers　without　the　utmost　art　in　colouring；　and　what　the　painters　call　handling；　that　is；　a　lightness　of　pencil　that　implies　great　practice；　and　gives　the　appearance　of　being　done　with　ease？　　Some　here；　I　believe；　must　remember　a　flower…painter　whose　boast　it　was　that　he　scorned　to　paint　for　the　million；　no；　he　professed　to　paint　in　the　true　Italian　taste；　and　despising　the　crowd；　called　strenuously　upon　the　few　to　admire　him。　　His　idea　of　the　Italian　taste　was　to　paint　as　black　and　dirty　as　he　could；　and　to　leave　all　clearness　and　brilliancy　of　colouring　to　those　who　were　fonder　of　money　than　of　immortality。　　The　consequence　was　such　as　might　be　expected。　　For　these　pretty　excellences　are　here　essential　beauties；　and　without　this　merit　the　artist's　work　will　be　more　short…lived　than　the　objects　of　his　imitation。
  From　what　has　been　advanced；　we　must　now　be　convinced　that　there　are　two　distinct　styles　in　history　painting：　　the　grand；　and　the　splendid　or　ornamental。
  The　great　style　stands　alone；　and　does　not　require；　perhaps　does　not　so　well　admit；　any　addition　from　inferior　beauties。　　The　ornamental　style　also　possesses　its　own　peculiar　merit。　　However；　though　the　union　of　the　two　may　make　a　sort　of　composite　style；　yet　that　style　is　likely　to　be　more　imperfect　than　either　of　those　which　go　to　its　composition。　　Both　kinds　have　merit；　and　may　be　excellent　though　in　different　ranks；　if　uniformity　be　preserved；　and　the　general　and　particular　ideas　of　nature　be　not　mixed。　　Even　the　meanest　of　them　is　difficult　enough　to　attain；　and　the　first　place　being　already　occupie