“Nature is a collective idea, and, though its essence exist in each individual of the species, can never in its perfection inhabit a single object.”
3] If,
Gentlemen, these directions presuppose in the student a sufficient stock
of elementary knowledge, an expertness in the rudiments, not mere wishes
but a peremptory will of improvement, and judgment with docility; how
much more do they imply in the person selected to address
them--knowledge founded on theory, substantiated and matured by
practice, a mass of select and well digested materials, perspicuity of
method and command of words, imagination to place things in such views
as they are not commonly seen in, presence of mind, and that resolution,
the result of conscious vigour, which, in daring to correct errors,
cannot be easily discountenanced.--As conditions like these would
discourage abilities far superior to mine, my hopes of approbation,
moderate as they are, must in a great measure depend on that indulgence
which may grant to my will what it would refuse to my powers.
Before I proceed to the history of Style itself, it seems to be
necessary that we should agree about the terms which denote its object
and perpetually recur in treating of it; that my vocabulary of technic
expression should not clash with the dictionary of my audience; mine is
nearly that of your late president. I shall confine myself at present to
a few of the most important; the words nature, beauty, grace, taste,
copy, imitation, genius, talent. Thus, by _nature_ I understand the
general and permanent principles of visible objects, not disfigured by
accident, or distempered by disease, not modified by fashion or local
habits. Nature is a collective idea, and, though its essence exist in
each individual of the species, can never in its perfection inhabit a
single object. On _beauty_ I do not mean to perplex you or myself with
abstract ideas, and the romantic reveries of platonic philosophy, or to
inquire whether it be the result of a simple or complex principle. As a
local idea, beauty is a despotic princess, and subject to the anarchies
of despotism, enthroned to-day, dethroned to-morrow. The beauty we
acknowledge is that harmonious whole of the human frame, that unison of
parts to one end, which enchants us; the result of the standard set by
the great masters of our art, the ancients, and confirmed by the
submissive verdict of modern imitation. By _grace_ I mean that artless
balance of motion and repose sprung from character, founded on
propriety, which neither falls short of the demands nor overleaps the
modesty of nature. Applied to execution, it means that dexterous power
which hides the means by which it was attained, the difficulties it has
conquered. When we say _taste_, we mean not crudely the knowledge of
what is right in art: taste estimates the degrees of excellence, and by
comparison proceeds from justness to refinement.
“Our ideas are the offspring of our senses; we are not more able to create the form of a being we have not seen, without retrospect to one we know, than we are able to create a new sense. He whose fancy has conceived an idea of the most beautiful form must have composed it from actual existence.”
As neither of these
subjects can present themselves to a painter's mind without a contrast
of the most awful and terrific tones of colour, magic of light and
shade, and unlimited command over the tools of art, we may with Pliny
and with Plutarch consider Apollodorus as the first assertor of the
pencil's honours, as the first colourist of his age, and the man who
opened the gates of art which the Heracleot Zeuxis entered.[11]
From the essential style of Polygnotus and the specific discrimination
of Apollodorus, Zeuxis, by comparison of what belonged to the genus and
what to the class, framed at last that ideal form, which in his opinion,
constituted the supreme degree of human beauty, or in other words,
embodied possibility, by uniting the various but homogeneous powers
scattered among many, in one object, to one end. Such a system, if it
originated in genius, was the considerate result of taste refined by the
unremitting perseverance with which he observed, consulted, compared,
selected the congenial but scattered forms of nature. Our ideas are the
offspring of our senses, we are not more able to create the form of a
being, we have not seen, without retrospect to one we know, than we are
able to create a new sense. He whose fancy has conceived an idea of the
most beautiful form must have composed it from actual existence, and he
alone can comprehend what one degree of beauty wants to become equal to
another, and at last superlative. He who thinks the pretty handsome,
will think the handsome a beauty, and fancy he has met an ideal form in
a merely handsome one, whilst he who has compared beauty with beauty,
will at last improve form upon form to a perfect image; this was the
method of Zeuxis, and this he learnt from Homer, whose mode of ideal
composition, according to Quintilian, he considered as his model. Each
individual of Homer forms a class, expresses and is circumscribed by one
quality of heroic power; Achilles alone unites their various but
congenial energies. The grace of Nireus, the dignity of Agamemnon, the
impetuosity of Hector, the magnitude, the steady prowess of the great,
the velocity of the lesser Ajax, the perseverance of Ulysses, the
intrepidity of Diomede, are emanations of energy that reunite in one
splendid centre fixed in Achilles. This standard of the unison of
homogeneous powers exhibited in _successive action_ by the poet, the
painter, invigorated no doubt by the contemplation of the works of
Phidias, transferred to his own art and substantiated by _form_, when he
selected the congenial beauties of Croton to compose a perfect female.
He was well acquainted
with osteology, or the form and position of the bones in the human body;
in these he seldom erred, although, perhaps, they were often too
strongly marked. He was also skilled in the theory of the anatomy of the
muscles; but as he never painted from, and seldom consulted, living
models after he quitted Italy, except when he occasionally acted as
"visitor in the Life Academy;" so, when he put a figure on paper or on
canvass into a position which he had never seen it assume, either in a
statue or in nature, he was occasionally incorrect in its muscular
action. The models in the "Life Academy" did not tend to correct him in
this, he being more intent upon the progress of the pupils than his own
information: they were therefore usually placed by him in attitudes to
correspond with the antique figures. As no individual form has been
found, in all its parts, to approach, in point of symmetry, to the
celebrated works of the ancient sculptors, so, when Fuseli has been
solicited to paint frequently from life, he has said, "Nature puts me
out;" meaning to convey this notion, that he searched in vain in the
individual for that beauty or grandeur which he had mentally
contemplated. Although he was happy in delineating playful scenes, yet
those which create terror or sympathy in the mind, were his general and
favourite subjects, and these he treated with great power; yet, in
carrying the terrible to its utmost limits, I know of no subject from
his pencil calculated to create horror or disgust. He invented and
composed his pictures with great rapidity, and if he thought of a
subject, and had not a canvass of a convenient size, it was frequently
his practice to rub in the new idea upon a finished picture; hence some
of his ablest productions are lost. As his mind was ever intent upon
something new, it cost him an effort to finish a picture; which
disposition, it appears, he inherited; for, in speaking of an ancestor,
Matthias Füessli, who died at Zurich in the year 1665, he thus expresses
himself:--"His extensive talent was checked by the freaks of an
ungovernable fancy, which seldom suffered him to finish his work.
“Blake is damned good to steal from.”