。　　Even　the　meanest　of　them　is　difficult　enough　to　attain；　and　the　first　place　being　already　occupied　by　the　great　artists　in　either　department；　some　of　those　who　followed　thought　there　was　less　room　for　them；　and　feeling　the　impulse　of　ambition　and　the　desire　of　novelty；　and　being　at　the　same　time　perhaps　willing　to　take　the　shortest　way；　they　endeavoured　to　make　for　themselves　a　place　between　both。　　This　they　have　effected　by　forming　a　union　of　the　different　orders。　　But　as　the　grave　and　majestic　style　would　suffer　by　a　union　with　the　florid　and　gay；　so　also　has　the　Venetian　ornament　in　some　respect　been　injured　by　attempting　an　alliance　with　simplicity。
  It　may　be　asserted　that　the　great　style　is　always　more　or　less　contaminated　by　any　meaner　mixture。　　But　it　happens　in　a　few　instances　that　the　lower　may　be　improved　by　borrowing　from　the　grand。　　Thus；　if　a　portrait　painter　is　desirous　to　raise　and　improve　his　subject；　he　has　no　other　means　than　by　approaching　it　to　a　general　idea。　　He　leaves　out　all　the　minute　breaks　and　peculiarities　in　the　face；　and　changes　the　dress　from　a　temporary　fashion　to　one　more　permanent；　which　has　annexed　to　it　no　ideas　of　meanness　from　its　being　familiar　to　us。　　But　if　an　exact　resemblance　of　an　individual　be　considered　as　the　sole　object　to　be　aimed　at；　the　portrait　painter　will　be　apt　to　lose　more　than　he　gains　by　the　acquired　dignity　taken　from　general　nature。　　It　is　very　difficult　to　ennoble　the　character　of　a　countenance　but　at　the　expense　of　the　likeness；　which　is　what　is　most　generally　required　by　such　as　sit　to　the　painter。
  Of　those　who　have　practised　the　composite　style；　and　have　succeeded　in　this　perilous　attempt；　perhaps　the　foremost　is　Correggio。　　His　style　is　founded　upon　modern　grace　and　elegance；　to　which　is　super；　added　something　of　the　simplicity　of　the　grand　style。　　A　breadth　of　light　and　colour；　the　general　ideas　of　the　drapery；　an　uninterrupted　flow　of　outline；　all　conspire　to　this　effect。　　Next　him　（perhaps　equal　to　him）　Parmegiano　has　dignified　the　genteelness　of　modern　effeminacy　by　uniting　it　with　the　simplicity　of　the　ancients　and　the　grandeur　and　severity　of　Michael　Angelo。　　It　must　be　confessed；　however；　that　these　two　extraordinary　men；　by　endeavouring　to　give　the　utmost　degree　of　grace；　have　sometimes；　perhaps；　exceeded　its　boundaries；　and　have　fallen　into　the　most　hateful　of　all　hateful　qualities；　affectation。　　Indeed；　it　is　the　peculiar　characteristic　of　men　of　genius　to　be　afraid　of　coldness　and　insipidity；　from　which　they　think　they　never　can　be　too　far　removed。　　It　particularly　happens　to　these　great　masters　of　grace　and　elegance。　　They　often　boldly　drive　on　to　the　very　verge　of　ridicule；　the　spectator　is　alarmed；　but　at　the　same　time　admires　their　vigour　and　intrepidity。
  Strange　graces　still；　and　stranger　flights　they　had；　。　。　。　Yet　ne'er　so　sure　our　passion　to　create　Ae　when　they　touch'd　the　brink　of　all　we　hate。
  The　errors　of　genius；　however；　are　pardonable；　and　none　even　of　the　more　exalted　painters　are　wholly　free　from　them；　but　they　have　taught　us；　by　the　rectitude　of　their　general　practice；　to　correct　their　own　affected　or　accidental　deviation。　　The　very　first　have　not　been　always　upon　their　guard；　and　perhaps　there　is　not　a　fault　but　what　may　take　shelter　under　the　most　venerable　authorities；　yet　that　style　only　is　perfect　in　which　the　noblest　principles　are　uniformly　pursued；　and　those　masters　only　are　entitled　to　the　first　rank　in；　our　estimation　who　have　enlarged　the　boundaries　of　their　art；　and　have　raised　it　to　its　highest　dignity；　by　exhibiting　the　general　ideas　of　nature。
  On　the　whole；　it　seems　to　me　that　there　is　but　one　presiding　principle　which　regulates　and　gives　stability　to　every　art。　　The　works；　whether　of　poets；　painters；　moralists；　or　historians；　which　are　built　upon　general　nature；　live　for　ever；　while　those　which　depend　for　their　existence　on　particular　customs　and　habits；　a　partial　view　of　nature；　or　the　fluctuation　of　fashion；　can　only　be　coeval　with　that　which　first　raised　them　from　obscurity。　　Present　time　and　future　maybe　considered　as　rivals；　and　he　who　solicits　the　one　must　expect　to　be　discountenanced　by　the　other。
  A　DISCOURSE
  Delivered　to　the　Students　of　the　Royal　Academy　on　the　Distribution　of　the　Prizes；　December　10；　1772；　by　the　President。
  Gentlemen；I　purpose　to　carry　on　in　this　discourse　the　subject　which　I　began　in　my　last。　　It　was　my　wish　upon　that　occasion　to　incite　you　to　pursue　the　higher　excellences　of　the　art。　　But　I　fear　that　in　this　particular　I　have　been　misunderstood。　　Some　are　ready　to　imagine；　when　any　of　their　favourite　acquirements　in　the　art　are　properly　classed；　that　they　are　utterly　disgraced。　　This　is　a　very　great　mistake：　　nothing　has　its　proper　lustre　but　in　its　proper　place。　　That　which　is　most　worthy　of　esteem　in　its　allotted　sphere　becomes　an　object；　not　of　respect；　but　of　derision；　when　it　is　forced　into　a　higher；　to　which　it　is　not　suited；　and　there　it　becomes　doubly　a　source　of　disorder；　by　occupying　a　situation　which　is　not　natural　to　it；　and　by　putting　down　from　the　first　place　what　is　in　reality　of　too　much　magnitude　to　become　with　grace　and　proportion　that　subordinate　station；　to　which　something　of　less　value　would　be　much　better　suited。
  My　advice　in　a　word　is　this：　　keep　your　principal　attention　fixed　upon　the　higher　excellences。　　If　you　compass　them　and　compass　nothing　more；　you　are　still　in　the　first　class。　　We　may　regret　the　innumerable　beauties　which　you　may　want：　　you　may　be　very　imperfect：　　but　still；　you　are　an　imperfect　person　of　the　highest　order。
  If；　when　you　have　got　thus　far；　you　can　add　any；　or　all；　of　the　subordinate　qualifications；　it　is　my　wish　and　advice　that　you　should　not　neglect　them。
  But　this　is　as　much　a　matter　of　circumspection　and　caution　at　least　as　of　eagerness　and　pursuit。
  The　mind　is　apt　to　be　distracted　by　a　multiplicity　of　pursuits；　and　that　scale　of　perfection；　which　I　wish　always　to　be　preserved；　is　in　the　greatest　danger　of　being　totally　disordered；　and　even　inverted。
  Some　excellences　bear　to　be　united；　and　are　improved　by　union；　others　are　of　a　discordant　nature；　and　the　attempt　to　join　them　only　produces　a　harsher　jarring　of　incongruent　principles。
  The　attempt　to　unite　contrary　excellences　（of　form；　for　instance）　in　a　single　figure；　can　never　escape　degenerating　into　the　monstrous；　but　by　sinking　into　the　insipid；　taking　away　its　marked　character；　and　weakening　its　expression。
  This　remark　is　true　to　a　certain　degree　with　regard　to　the　passions。　　If　you　mean　to　preserve　the　most　perfect　beauty　in　its　most　perfect　state；　you　cannot　express　the　passions；　which　produce　（all　of　them）　distortion　and　deformity；　more　or　less；　in　the　most　beautiful　faces。
  Guido；　from　want　of　choice　in　adapting　his　subject　to　his　ideas　and　his　powers；　or　in　attempting　to　preserve　beauty　where　it　could　not　be　preserved　has　in　this　respect　succeeded　very　ill。　　His　figures　are　often　engaged　in　subjects　that　required　great　expression：　　yet　his　〃Judith　and　Holofernes；〃　the　〃Daughter　of　Herodias　with　the　Baptist's　Head；〃　the　〃Andromeda；〃　and　even　the　〃Mothers　of　the　Innocents；〃　have　little　more　expression　than　his　〃Venus　attired　by　the　Graces。〃
  Obvious　as　these　remarks　appear；　there　are　many　writers　on　our　art；　who；　not　being　of　the　profession；　and　consequently　not　knowing　what　can　or　what　cannot　be　done；　have　been　very　liberal　of　absurd　praises　in　their　descriptions　of　favourite　works。　　They　always　find　in　them　what　they　are　resolved　to　find。　　They　praise　excellences　that　can　hardly　exist　together；　and　above　all　things　are　fond　of　describing　with　great　exactness　the　expression　of　a　mixed　passion；　which　more　particularly　appears　to　me　out　of　the　reach　of　our　art。
  Such　are　many　disquisitions　which　I　have　read　on　some　of　the　cartoons　and　other　pictures　of　Raffaelle；　where　the　critics　have　described　their　own　imagination；　or　indeed　where　the　excellent　master　himself　may　have　attempted　this　expression　of　passions　above　the　powers　of　the　art；　and　has；　therefore；　by　an　indistinct　and　imperfect　marking；　left　room　for　every　imagination；　with　equal　probability　to　find　a　passion　of　his　own。　　What　has　been；　and　what　can　be　done　in　the　art；　is　sufficiently　difficult；　we　need　not　be　mortified　or　discouraged　for　not　being　able　to　execute　the　conceptions　of　a　romantic　imagination。　　Art　has　its　boundaries；　though　imagination　has　none。　　We　can　easily；　like　the　ancients；　suppose　a　Jupiter　to　be　possessed　of　all　those　powers　and　perfections　which　the　subordinate　Deities　were　endowed　with　separately。　　Yet；　when　they　employed　their　art　to　represent　him；　they　confined　his　character　to　majesty　alone。　　Pliny；　therefore；　though　we　are　under　great　obligations　to　him　for　the　information　he　has　given　us　in　relation　to　the　works　of　the　ancient　artists；　is　very　frequently　wrong　when　he　speaks　of　them；　which　he　does　very　often　in　the　style　of　many　of　our　modern　connoisseurs。　　He　observes　that　in　a　statue　of　Paris；　by　Fuphranor；　you　might　discover　at　the　same　time　three　different　characters；　the　dignity　of　a　judge　of　the　goddesses；　the　lover　of　Helen；　and　the　conqueror　of　Achilles。　　A　statue　in　which　you　endeavour　to　unite　stately　dignity；　youthful　elegance；　and　stern