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 particularly 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

nolet, Caravaggio, which have a greater affinity to grandeur, are ill suited to beauty, from qualities notoriously adverse to that character; for who would wish to have the dark shadows of Caravaggio or Rembrandt, or the bold touches of Salvator or Spagnolet, employed on Nymphs and sleeping Cupids? or, on the other hand, the fresh and tender hues of Albano, or the sweetness of Correggio's pencilling and colouring, on executioners, sea-monsters, and banditti?

CHAPTER VII.

THE various effects in painting which have been discussed in the last chapter, naturally lead me to that great principle of the art, breadth of light and shadow. What is called breadth, seems to bear nearly the same relation to light and shadow, as smoothness does to material objects; for as a greater degree of irritation arises from uneven surfaces, and from those most of all which are broken into little inequalities, so all lights and shadows which are interrupted and scattered, are infinitely more irritating than those which

are broad and continued. Every person of the least observation, must have remarked how broad the lights and shadows are on a fine evening in nature, or (what is almost the same thing) in a picture of Claude. He must equally have remarked the extreme difference between such lights and shadows, and those which sometimes disgrace the works of painters, in other respects of great excellence; and which prevail in nature, when the sun-beams, refracted and dispersed in every direction by a number of white flickering clouds, create a perpetually shifting glare, and keep the eye in a state of constant irritation. All such accidental effects arising from clouds, though they strongly shew the general principle, and are highly proper to be studied by all lovers of painting or of nature, yêt not being subject to our controul, are of less use to improvers; a great deal however is subject to our controul, and I believe we may lay it down as a very general maxim, that in proportion as the ob jects are scattered, unconnected, and in