the other masters of his and the Roman school their colouring, however well adapted to the character of their figures and compositions, however it may satisfy the judgment, has little to please the eye; and I should conceive that if it were applied to objects divested of grandeur and dignity, the union would appear incongruous, and that the affinity I mentioned between the grand style of painting and sculpture would be still more evident from their being almost equally unfit to represent objects merely picturesque.

The Venetian style, on the other hand, in which there is a greater variety of colours, and those broken, and blended into each other, is in itself extremely at tractive from its richness, glow and harmony it gives a sort of consequence and elevation to objects the most simply picturesque, yet preserves their just character. One painter of this school, must in some measure be considered separately from the rest; for when Sir Joshua Reynolds speaks of the Venetian style as ornamental

or picturesque, and consequently, accord ing to the principles he has laid down, less suited to grandeur, he makes an exception in favour of Titian; and the grounds on which he makes it, very clearly explain his ideas of the distinction between grandeur and picturesqueness. In comparing a pic ture of that master with one of Rubens, he opposes the regularity and uniformity, the quiet solemn majesty in the work of the Venetian, to the bustle and animation, and to the picturesque disposition in that of the Flemish Master *.

As the ornamental style of the Venetians, and of Rubens, who formed himself upon it, bears a nearer relation to the beautiful than to the grand, so, on the other hand, the picturesque style where ornament is little used, as in the works of Salvator Rosa, is more nearly related to grandeur. The style of Salvator and that of Rembrandt, though widely different, resemble each other in one particular; in each the strokes of the

E

*Note 25th on Du Fresnoï,

pencil are often left in the roughest manner: and as nothing can be more adapted to strongly marked picturesque objects and effects, so nothing can be less suited to express beauty, and to convey a general impression of that character. What is the style most truly productive of that general impression, will be much better learnt from the words of Sir Joshua Reynolds, than from any thing I could say; though he had not exactly the same point in view. Speaking of Correggio, he says, "his colour and his mode of finishing, approach nearer to perfection than those of any other painter; the gliding motion of his outline, and the sweetness with which it melts into the ground, the clearness and transparency of his colouring, which stops at that exact medium in which the purity and perfection of taste lies, leave nothing to be wished for."

If there be any style of painting, which, in contra-distinction to the others, might justly be called the beautiful style, that of Correggio has certainly from this descrip

tion, the best pretensions to the title: but as that word is so commonly used merely to signify excellent, and as in that sense all styles which are suited to the subject, and all pictures which give a just and impressive representation of the objects, (though the most hideous and disgusting) are equally beautiful, Sir Joshua might naturally have declined giving it that name, even supposing him inclined to make such a distinction. He seems, however, in some degree to have indicated it; first by what he says of Guido's manner being particu larly adapted to express female beauty and delicacy; and secondly by the whole account of the manner of Correggio; which, it must be observed, he has not classed either with the ornamental, or with the grand style. He remarks indeed in another place, that it has something of the simplicity of the grand style in the breadth of the light and shadow, and the continued flow of outline; but no person, I think, who reads the description of it just quoted, can doubt that having neither the solemnity

and severity of the grand, nor the richness and splendour of the ornamental style, it must have a separate character in a high degree appropriate to what is simply beautiful; and may equally with them (though that is a consideration of much less importance) lay claim to a distinct title.

It is no small confirmation of all that I have advanced in the early part of this chapter, to find that each style of painting corresponds with the characteristic marks of the grand, the beautiful, and the picturesque, in real objects; and I trust that the different shades of distinction that have been noticed, will be found consistent with the general principles. The style of the Venetians and of Pietro da Cortona, will not accord with the grand character, on account of its splendour, its gaiety, and profusion of ornaments; and the reproof of Apelles may shew, that such a profusion is not adapted to beauty, though more congenial to it than to grandeur. Again, the style of Salvator Rosa, Rembrandt, Spag