It　has　sometimes　happened　that　some　of　the　greatest　men　in　our　art　have　been　betrayed　into　errors　by　this　confined　mode　of　reasoning。　Poussin；　who；　upon　the　whole；　may　be　produced　as　an　instance　of　attention　to　the　most　enlarged　and　extensive　ideas　of　nature；　from　not　having　settled　principles　on　this　point；　has　in　one　instance　at　least；　I　think；　deserted　truth　for　prejudice。　　He　is　said　to　have　vindicated　the　conduct　of　Julio　Romano；　for　his　inattention　to　the　masses　of　light　and　shade；　or　grouping　the　figures；　in　the　battle　of　Constantine；　as　if　designedly　neglected；　the　better　to　correspond　with　the　hurry　and　confusion　of　a　battle。　　Poussin's　own　conduct　in　his　representations　of　Bacchanalian　triumphs　and　sacrifices；　makes　us　more　easily　give　credit　to　this　report；　since　in　such　subjects；　as　well　indeed　as　in　many　others；　it　was　too　much　his　own　practice。　　The　best　apology　we　can　make　for　this　conduct　is　what　proceeds　from　the　association　of　our　ideas；　the　prejudice　we　have　in　favour　of　antiquity。　　Poussin's　works；　as　I　have　formerly　observed；　have　very　much　the　air　of　the　ancient　manner　of　painting；　in　which　there　are　not　the　least　traces　to　make　us　think　that　what　we　call　the　keeping；　the　composition　of　light　and　shade；　or　distribution　of　the　work　into　masses；　claimed　any　part　of　their　attention。　　But　surely　whatever　apology　we　may　find　out　for　this　neglect；　it　ought　to　be　ranked　among　the　defects　of　Poussin；　as　well　as　of　the　antique　paintings；　and　the　moderns　have　a　right　to　that　praise　which　is　their　due；　for　having　given　so　pleasing　an　addition　to　the　splendour　of　the　art。
  Perhaps　no　apology　ought　to　be　received　for　offences　committed　against　the　vehicle　（whether　it　be　the　organ　of　seeing　or　of　hearing）　by　which　our　pleasures　are　conveyed　to　the　mind。　　We　must　take　the　same　care　that　the　eye　be　not　perplexed　and　distracted　by　a　confusion　of　equal　parts；　or　equal　lights；　as　of　offending　it　by　an　unharmonious　mixture　of　colours。　　We　may　venture　to　be　more　confident　of　the　truth　of　this　observation；　since　we　find　that　Shakespeare；　on　a　parallel　occasion；　has　made　Hamlet　recommend　to　the　players　a　precept　of　the　same　kind；　never　to　offend　the　ear　by　harsh　sounds：…　〃In　the　very　torrent；　tempest；　and　whirlwind　of　your　passions；〃　says　he；　〃you　must　beget　a　temperance　that　may　give　it　smoothness。〃　　And　yet；　at　the　same　time；　he　very　justly　observes；　〃The　end　of　playing；　both　at　the　first　and　now；　is　to　hold；　as　it　were；　the　mirror　up　to　nature。〃　　No　one　can　deny　but　that　violent　passions　will　naturally　emit　harsh　and　disagreeable　tones；　yet　this　great　poet　and　critic　thought　that　this　imitation　of　nature　would　cost　too　much；　if　purchased　at　the　expense　of　disagreeable　sensations；　or；　as　he　expresses　it；　of　〃splitting　the　ear。〃　　The　poet　and　actor；　as　well　as　the　painter　of　genius　who　is　well　acquainted　with　all　the　variety　and　sources　of　pleasure　in　the　mind　and　imagination；　has　little　regard　or　attention　to　common　nature；　or　creeping　after　common　sense。　　By　overleaping　those　narrow　bounds；　he　more　effectually　seizes　the　whole　mind；　and　more　powerfully　accomplishes　his　purpose。　　This　success　is　ignorantly　imagined　to　proceed　from　inattention　to　all　rules；　and　in　defiance　of　reason　and　judgment；　whereas　it　is　in　truth　acting　according　to　the　best　rules；　and　the　justest　reason。
  He　who　thinks　nature；　in　the　narrow　sense　of　the　word；　is　alone　to　be　followed；　will　produce　but　a　scanty　entertainment　for　the　imagination：　　everything　is　to　be　done　with　which　it　is　natural　for　the　mind　to　be　pleased；　whether　it　proceeds　from　simplicity　or　variety；　uniformity　or　irregularity：　　whether　the　scenes　are　familiar　or　exotic；　rude　and　wild；　or　enriched　and　cultivated；　for　it　is　natural　for　the　mind　to　be　pleased　with　all　these　in　their　turn。　　In　short；　whatever　pleases　has　in　it　what　is　analogous　to　the　mind；　and　is　therefore；　in　the　highest　and　best　sense　of　the　word；　natural。
  It　is　this　sense　of　nature　or　truth　which　ought　more　particularly　to　be　cultivated　by　the　professors　of　art；　and　it　may　be　observed　that　many　wise　and　learned　men；　who　have　accustomed　their　minds　to　admit　nothing　for　truth　but　what　can　be　proved　by　mathematical　demonstration；　have　seldom　any　relish　for　those　arts　which　address　themselves　to　the　fancy；　the　rectitude　and　truth　of　which　is　known　by　another　kind　of　proof：　　and　we　may　add　that　the　acquisition　of　this　knowledge　requires　as　much　circumspection　and　sagacity；　as　to　attain　those　truths　which　are　more　open　to　demonstration。　　Reason　must　ultimately　determine　our　choice　on　every　occasion；　but　this　reason　may　still　be　exerted　ineffectually　by　applying　to　taste　principles　which；　though　right　as　far　as　they　go；　yet　do　not　reach　the　object。　　No　man；　for　instance；　can　deny　that　it　seems　at　first　view　very　reasonable；　that　a　statue　which　is　to　carry　down　to　posterity　the　resemblance　of　an　individual　should　be　dressed　in　the　fashion　of　the　times；　in　the　dress　which　he　himself　wore：　　this　would　certainly　be　true　if　the　dress　were　part　of　the　man。　　But　after　a　time　the　dress　is　only　an　amusement　for　an　antiquarian；　and　if　it　obstructs　the　general　design　of　the　piece；　it　is　to　be　disregarded　by　the　artist。　　Common　sense　must　here　give　way　to　a　higher　sense。
  In　the　naked　form；　and　in　the　disposition　of　the　drapery；　the　difference　between　one　artist　and　another　is　principally　seen。　　But　if　he　is　compelled　to　the　modern　dress；　the　naked　form　is　entirely　hid；　and　the　drapery　is　already　disposed　by　the　skill　of　the　tailor。　　Were　a　Phidias　to　obey　such　absurd　commands；　he　would　please　no　more　than　an　ordinary　sculptor；　since；　in　the　inferior　parts　of　every　art；　the　learned　and　the　ignorant　are　nearly　upon　a　level。
  These　were　probably　among　the　reasons　that　induced　the　sculptor　of　that　wonderful　figure　of　Laocoon　to　exhibit　him　naked；　notwithstanding　he　was　surprised　in　the　act　of　sacrificing　to　Apollo；　and　consequently　ought　to　be　shown　in　his　sacerdotal　habits；　if　those　greater　reasons　had　not　preponderated。　　Art　is　not　yet　in　so　high　estimation　with　us　as　to　obtain　so　great　a　sacrifice　as　the　ancients　made；　especially　the　Grecians；　who　suffered　themselves　to　be　represented　naked；　whether　they　were　generals；　lawgivers；　or　kings。
  Under　this　head　of　balancing　and　choosing　the　greater　reason；　or　of　two　evils　taking　the　least；　we　may　consider　the　conduct　of　Rubens　in　the　Luxembourg　gallery；　of　mixing　allegorical　figures　with　representations　of　real　personages；　which；　though　acknowledged　to　be　a　fault；　yet；　if　the　artist　considered　himself　as　engaged　to　furnish　this　gallery　with　a　rich　and　splendid　ornament；　this　could　not　be　done；　at　least　in　an　equal　degree；　without　peopling　the　air　and　water　with　these　allegorical　figures：　　he　therefore　accomplished　that　he　purposes。　　In　this　case　all　lesser　considerations；　which　tend　to　obstruct　the　great　end　of　the　work；　must　yield　and　give　way。
  If　it　is　objected　that　Rubens　judged　ill　at　first　in　thinking　it　necessary　to　make　his　work　so　very　ornamental；　this　brings　the　question　upon　new　ground。　　It　was　his　peculiar　style；　he　could　paint　in　no　other；　and　he　was　selected　for　that　work；　probably；　because　it　was　his　style。　　Nobody　will　dispute　but　some　of　the　best　of　the　Roman　or　Bolognian　schools　would　have　produced　a　more　learned　and　more　noble　work。
  This　leads　us　to　another　important　province　of　taste；　of　weighing　the　value　of　the　different　classes　of　the　art；　and　of　estimating　them　accordingly。
  All　arts　have　means　within　them　of　applying　themselves　with　success　both　to　the　intellectual　and　sensitive　part　of　our　natures。　　It　can　be　no　dispute；　supposing　both　these　means　put　in　practice　with　equal　abilities；　to　which　we　ought　to　give　the　preference：　　to　him　who　represents　the　heroic　arts　and　more　dignified　passions　of　man；　or　to　him　who；　by　the　help　of　meretricious　ornaments；　however　elegant　and　graceful；　captivates　the　sensuality；　as　it　may　be　called；　of　our　taste。　　Thus　the　Roman　and　Bolognian　schools　are　reasonably　preferred　to　the　Venetian；　Flemish；　or　Dutch　schools；　as　they　address　themselves　to　our　best　and　noblest　faculties。
  Well…turned　periods　in　eloquence；　or　harmony　of　numbers　in　poetry；　which　are　in　those　arts　what　colouring　is　in　painting；　however　highly　we　may　esteem　them；　can　never　be　considered　as　of　equal　importance　with　the　art　of　unfolding　truths　that　are　useful　to　mankind；　and　which　make　us　better　or　wiser。　　Nor　can　those　works　which　remind　us　of　the　poverty　and　meanness　of　our　nature；　be　considered　as　of　equal　rank　with　what　excites　ideas　of　grandeur；　or　raises　and　dignifies　humanity；　or；　in　the　words　of　a　late　poet；　which　makes　the　beholder　learn　to　venerate　himself　as　man。
  It　is　reason　and　good　sense　therefore　which　ranks　and　estimates　every　art；　and　every　part　of　that　art；　according　to　its　importance；　from　the　painter　of　animated　down　to　inanimated　nature。　　We　will　not　allow　a　man；　who　shall　prefer　the　inferior　style；　to　say　it　is　his　taste；　taste　here　has　nothing；　or　at　least　ought　to　have　nothing　to　do　with　the　question。　　He　wants　not　taste；　but　sense；　and　soundness　of　judgment。
  Indeed；　perfection　in　an　inferior　style　may　be　reasonably　preferred　to　mediocrity　in　the　highest　walks　of　art。　　A　landscape　of　Claude　Lorraine　may　be　preferred　to　a　histo