tions　or　their　attitudes；　or　the　style　and　cast　of　their　very　limbs　or　features；　that　puts　one　in　mind　of　their　belonging；　to　our　own　species。　　Raffaelle's　imagination　is　not　so　elevated；　his　figures　are　not　so　much　disjoined　from　our　own　diminutive　race　of　beings；　though　his　ideas　are　chaste；　noble；　and　of　great　conformity　to　their　subjects。　　Michael　Angelo's　works　have　a　strong；　peculiar；　and　marked　character；　they　seem　to　proceed　from　his　own　mind　entirely；　and　that　mind　so　rich　and　abundant；　that　he　never　needed；　or　seemed　to　disdain；　to　look　abroad　for　foreign　help。　　Raffaelle's　materials　are　generally　borrowed；　though　the　noble　structure　is　his　own。　　The　excellency　of　this　extraordinary　man　lay　in　the　propriety；　beauty；　and　majesty　of　his　characters；　his　judicious　contrivance　of　his　composition；　correctness　of　drawing；　purity　of　taste；　and　the　skilful　accommodation　of　other　men's　conceptions　to　his　own　purpose。　　Nobody　excelled　him　in　that　judgment；　with　which　he　united　to　his　own　observations　on　nature　the　energy　of　Michael　Angelo；　and　the　beauty　and　simplicity　of　the　antique。　　To　the　question；　therefore；　which　ought　to　hold　the　first　rank；　Raffaelle　or　Michael　Angelo；　it　must　be　answered；　that　if　it　is　to　be　given　to　him　who　possessed　a　greater　combination　of　the　higher　qualities　of　the　art　than　any　other　man；　there　is　no　doubt　but　Raffaelle　is　the　first。　　But　if；　according　to　Longinus；　the　sublime；　being　the　highest　excellence　that　human　composition　can　attain　to；　abundantly　compensates　the　absence　of　every　other　beauty；　and　atones　for　all　other　deficiencies；　then　Michael　Angelo　demands　the　preference。
  These　two　extraordinary　men　carried　some　of　the　higher　excellences　of　the　art　to　a　greater　degree　of　perfection　than　probably　they　ever　arrived　at　before。　　They　certainly　have　not　been　excelled；　nor　equalled　since。　　Many　of　their　successors　were　induced　to　leave　this　great　road　as　a　beaten　path；　endeavouring　to　surprise　and　please　by　something　uncommon　or　new。　　When　this　desire　after　novelty　has　proceeded　from　mere　idleness　or　caprice；　it　is　not　worth　the　trouble　of　criticism；　but　when　it　has　been　in　consequence　of　a　busy　mind　of　a　peculiar　complexion；　it　is　always　striking　and　interesting；　never　insipid。
  Such　is　the　great　style　as　it　appears　in　those　who　possessed　it　at　its　height；　in　this；　search　after　novelty　in　conception　or　in　treating　the　subject　has　no　place。
  But　there　is　another　style；　which；　though　inferior　to　the　former；　has　still　great　merit；　because　it　shows　that　those　who　cultivated　it　were　men　of　lively　and　vigorous　imagination。　　This　I　call　the　original　or　characteristical　style；　this；　being　less　referred　to　any　true　architype　existing　either　in　general　or　particular　nature；　must　be　supported　by　the　painter's　consistency　in　the　principles　he　has　assumed；　and　in　the　union　and　harmony　of　his　whole　design。　　The　excellency　of　every　style；　but　I　think　of　the　subordinate　ones　more　especially；　will　very　much　depend　on　preserving　that　union　and　harmony　between　all　the　component　parts；　that　they　appear　to　hang　well　together；　as　if　the　whole　proceeded　from　one　mind。　　It　is　in　the　works　of　art；　as　in　the　characters　of　men。　　The　faults　or　defects　of　some　men　seem　to　become　them　when　they　appear　to　be　the　natural　growth；　and　of　a　piece　with　the　rest　of　their　character。　　A　faithful　picture　of　a　mind；　though　it　be　not　of　the　most　elevated　kind；　though　it　be　irregular；　wild；　and　incorrect；　yet　if　it　be　marked　with　that　spirit　and　firmness　which　characterises　works　of　genius；　will　claim　attention；　and　be　more　striking　than　a　combination　of　excellences　that　do　not　seem　to　hang　well　together；　or　we　may　say　than　a　work　that　possesses　even　all　excellences；　but　those　in　a　moderate　degree。
  One　of　the　strongest　marked　characters　of　this　kind；　which　must　be　allowed　to　be　subordinate　to　the　great　style；　is　that　of　Salvator　Rosa。　　He　gives　us　a　peculiar　cast　of　nature；　which；　though　void　of　all　grace；　elegance；　and　simplicity；　though　it　has　nothing　of　that　elevation　and　dignity　which　belongs　to　the　grand　style；　yet　has　that　sort　of　dignity　which　belongs　to　savage　and　uncultivated　nature。　　But　what　is　most　to　be　admired　in　him　is　the　perfect　correspondence　which　he　observed　between　the　subjects　which　he　chose；　and　his　manner　of　treating　them。　　Everything　is　of　a　piece：　his　rocks；　trees；　sky；　even　to　his　handling　have　the　same　rude　and　wild　character　which　animates　his　figures。
  To　him　we　may　contrast　the　character　of　Carlo　Maratti；　who；　in　my　own　opinion；　had　no　great　vigour　of　mind　or　strength　of　original　genius。　　He　rarely　seizes　the　imagination　by　exhibiting　the　higher　excellences；　nor　does　he　captivate　us　by　that　originality　which　attends　the　painter　who　thinks　for　himself。　　He　knew　and　practised　all　the　rules　of　art；　and　from　a　composition　of　Raffaelle；　Caracci；　and　Guido；　made　up　a　style；　of　which　its　only　fault　was；　that　it　had　no　manifest　defects　and　no　striking　beauties；　and　that　the　principles　of　his　composition　are　never　blended　together；　so　as　to　form　one　uniform　body；　original　in　its　kind；　or　excellent　in　any　view。
  I　will　mention　two　other　painters　who；　though　entirely　dissimilar；　yet　by　being　each　consistent　with　himself；　and　possessing　a　manner　entirely　his　own；　have　both　gained　reputation；　though　for　very　opposite　accomplishments。
  The　painters　I　mean　are　Rubens　and　Poussin。　　Rubens　I　mention　in　this　place；　as　I　think　him　a　remarkable　instance　of　the　same　mind　being　seen　in　all　the　various　parts　of　the　art。　　The　whole　is　so　much　of　a　piece　that　one　can　scarce　be　brought　to　believe　but　that　if　any　one　of　them　had　been　more　correct　and　perfect；　his　works　would　not　be　so　complete　as　they　now　appear。　　If　we　should　allow　a　greater　purity　and　correctness　of　drawing；　his　want　of　simplicity　in　composition；　colouring；　and　drapery　would　appear　more　gross。
  In　his　composition　his　art　is　too　apparent。　　His　figures　have　expression；　and　act　with　energy；　but　without　simplicity　or　dignity。　His　colouring；　in　which　he　is　eminently　skilled；　is；　notwithstanding；　too　much　of　what　we　call　tinted。　　Throughout　the　whole　of　his　works　there　is　a　proportionable　want　of　that　nicety　of　distinction　and　elegance　of　mind　which　is　required　in　the　higher　walks　of　painting；　and　to　this　want　it　may　be　in　some　degree　ascribed　that　those　qualities　which　make　the　excellency　of　this　subordinate　style　appear　in　him　with　their　greatest　lustre。　Indeed；　the　facility　with　which　he　invented；　the　richness　of　his　composition；　the　luxuriant　harmony　and　brilliancy　of　his　colouring；　so　dazzle　the　eye；　that　whilst　his　works　continue　before　us　we　cannot　help　thinking　that　all　his　deficiencies　are　fully　supplied。
  Opposed　to　this　florid；　careless；　loose；　and　inaccurate　style；　that　of　the　simple；　careful；　pure；　and　correct　style　of　Poussin　seems　to　be　a　complete　contrast。
  Yet　however　opposite　their　characters；　in　one　thing　they　agreed；　both　of　them　having　a　perfect　correspondence　between　all　the　parts　of　their　respective　manners。
  One　is　not　sure　but　every　alteration　of　what　is　considered　as　defective　in　either；　would　destroy　the　effect　of　the　whole。
  Poussin　lived　and　conversed　with　the　ancient　statues　so　long；　that　he　may　be　said　to　be　better　acquainted　with　then　than　with　the　people　who　were　about　him。　　I　have　often　thought　that　he　carried　his　veneration　for　them　so　far　as　to　wish　to　give　his　works　the　air　of　ancient　paintings。　　It　is　certain　he　copied　some　of　the　antique　paintings；　particularly　the　〃Marriage　in　the　Albrobrandini　Palace　at　Rome；〃　which　I　believe　to　be　the　best　relique　of　those　remote　ages　that　has　yet　been　found。
  No　works　of　any　modern　has　so　much　of　the　air　of　antique　painting　as　those　of　Poussin。　　His　best　performances　have　a　remarkable　dryness　of　manner；　which；　though　by　no　means　to　be　recommended　for　imitation；　yet　seems　perfectly　correspondent　to　that　ancient　simplicity　which　distinguishes　his　style。　　Like　Polidoro　he　studied　them　so　much；　that　he　acquired　a　habit　of　thinking　in　their　way；　and　seemed　to　know　perfectly　the　actions　and　gestures　they　would　use　on　every　occasion。
  Poussin　in　the　latter　part　of　his　life　changed　from　his　dry　manner　to　one　much　softer　and　richer；　where　there　is　a　greater　union　between　the　figures　and　the　ground；　such　as　the　〃Seven　Sacraments〃　in　the　Duke　of　Orleans'　collection；　but　neither　these；　nor　any　in　this　manner；　are　at　all　comparable　to　many　in　his　dry　manner　which　we　have　in　England。
  The　favourite　subjects　of　Poussin　were　ancient　fables；　and　no　painter　was　ever　better　qualified　to　paint　such　subjects；　not　only　from　his　being　eminently　skilled　in　the　knowledge　of　ceremonies；　customs；　and　habits　of　the　ancients；　but　from　his　being　so　well　acquainted　with　the　different　characters　which　those　who　invented　them　gave　their　allegorical　figures。　　Though　Rubens　has　shown　great　fancy　in　his　Satyrs；　Silenuses；　and　Fauns；　yet　they　are　not　that　distinct　separate　class　of　beings　which　is　carefully　exhibited　by　the　ancients　and　by　Poussin。　　Certainly　when　such　subjects　of　antiquity　are　represented；　nothing　in　the　picture　ought　to　remind　us　of　modern　times。　　The　mind　is　thrown　back　into　antiquity；　and　nothing　ought　to　be　introduced　that　may　tend　to　awaken　it　from　the　illusion。
  Poussin　seemed　to　thi