incongruous an aspect as a paltry Chinese pagoda beside the solidity and elegance of a towering cathedral.*

*

A subject of this nature requires to be discussed upon its own merits: the highest authority may not be the safest guide; and those ancient lords of the intellectual reign, whose names we revere, were frequently deficient in that degree of information which is necessary in order to form a correct decision. Yet how can I refer without pride, to the sentiments of Bacon and of Newton in support of the view which I have taken? It was the opinion of the former, that "comets have some power and effect over the gross and mass of things;" while the latter explicitly states his suspicion, that the exhalations of comets are instrumental in restoring the humidity, which he supposes to diminish, upon the surface of the earth, and that from them may proceed the supply of that refined spirit,-the least, but purest part of our air,-which is requisite for the existence of all vitality. The erroneous nature of this conjecture is immediately apparent; but it is, at the same time, evident that neither of these fathers of science considered a belief in the influence of comets to be an indication of unbridled extravagance, of illiterate prejudice, or of imbecile superstition.

M. Arago has stated, that a comet can act on the earth only in three manners ;-by attraction, by its luminous and calorific rays, or by the union of its tail with the atmosphere of the earth. It will be seen that the line of argument which has been taken, reduces his assertion to a mere petitio principii. His inferences, however, are well worthy of attention. Having shewn that the results produced by the two former causes would be insensible, he adds, that not only cometary matter may fall into our atmosphere, but

*It is highly gratifying to me, to find that a sentiment remarkably similar was expressed by Tycho Brahe: "Astrologorum vanitatem, inertiam, ignaviam, et sordes plurimum et deridere et detestari est solitus: sic tamen, ut siderum effectus in sublunaribus partem philosophiæ præstantissimam nequaquam negaret: gnarus effectus illos siderum generales, ab eventibus ipsis in rebus humanis individuis, accuratissimo judicio distinguere."-Vita, à Gassendo, p. 187.

The prediction of Fromond, (who was no friend to astrology), and Pingre's comment upon it, deserve insertion: "La comète de 1618 a annoncé et doit opérer un grand désastre, la ruine entière de la Philosophie d'Aristote. C'est la seule prédiction, fondée sur les apparitions des comètes, qui ait été bien certainement accomplie."-Comètographie, i., 104.

+ Milne's Essay, pp. 112, 180.

*

that this phenomenon is of a nature to occur frequently, and may possibly produce those epidemic diseases which have been attributed to it. Thus, also, Mr. Herapath has considered the subject: "history furnishes us with numberless instances of the great atmospheric changes which have accompanied or succeeded the apparition of large and notorious comets; and unless we reject altogether its often iterated testimonies, I do not see how we can refuse our assent to influences so manifest, and yet so simple and perfectly philosophical. That comets may produce very sensible effects, in the way alluded to, not only in the meteorological state of the air, but in its salubrity, our best philosophers admit; but these effects must always be concurrent or posterior-never, I apprehend, anterior-to their appearance.”+

Without offering any opinion upon the views thus suggested, which, it must be confessed, have been lately placed in a very unfavourable light by Professor Littrow, I may remark that this is a most important and interesting portion of the subject, and totally distinct from that which has formed the object of our reflections: the influence, whose possibility we have been contemplating, would be as independent of proximity or contact, as that of light or gravitation; but that indicated by M. Arago is an action resulting from the real combination of a heterogeneous substance with our atmosphere. That such an union may occur, is indisputable, from the disposition of the paths of comets, the immense extent of their tails, and their feeble gravitation towards their nuclei; and it is highly probable that events of this kind have actually taken place: but whether any effects are thus produced, and what those effects may be, are questions which cannot be determined otherwise than by observation and experience.

THOMAS WILLIAM WEBB.

Tretire, near Ross, Dec. 3, 1835.

*Mechanics' Magazine, xviii, 28, 60. + Mechanics' Magazine, xviii. 63.

230

CURSORY OBSERVATIONS

ON CERTAIN INCONSIDERATE CRITICISMS RESPECTING PAINTING AND SCULPTURE.

BY WILLIAM CAREY.

THERE is no mistake more common, in forming a judgment of fine ideal works of art, or those which are imaginative representations of incidents in general nature, than that of approving or censuring those performances by comparisons which the critics have founded on their own views of particular nature. They set up whatever they have seen and been struck with, in ordinary or familiar life, as a standard for art, every deviation from which they conceive to be a defect in the picture, and a want of judgment or genius in the painter. But, in passing this censure, they overlook the fact that there are various modifications of persons, manners, and accessories, in every rank and degree of society. They also forget that unless the artist had been always, or generally, present with them, he could not have seen those particulars, which they require, or, by any possibility, have painted them. Even if he had been with the censors, there are very few who agree in their views or relish for the same objects, and, in case of such a disagreement, the designer must either exercise his own judgment, or servilely follow that of another contrary to his sentiments.

The misconception to which I have adverted is very prevalent, and I am induced to notice it particularly, because it has proved an obstacle to the progress of taste and patronage, and the best interests of the British school. Unfortunately, it is not confined to individuals of a limited understanding and education, or such as are new to the inspection of painting and sculpture. Very many persons of liberal education, good abilities, and extensive acquirements in other intellectual departments, on visiting the exhibitions of modern art, adopt this erroneous mode of comparison, in judging the performances under their inspection. It is certain that great scholastic attainments alone, even of the highest order, do not constitute a qualification to judge correctly of the productions of the pencil and

chisel, although, combined with an early and intimate access to fine collections, an accomplished scholar possesses important advantages in justly discriminating the beauties and defects of pictures and statues.

Boswell, the enthusiastic admirer and friendly biographer of Dr. Johnson, has admitted that the distinguished subject of his eulogium "had no taste for painting." (vol. iv., p. 310). In the usual acceptation of words, the declaration here quoted amounts, in effect, to this, that "the great literary Colossus" had no liking for pictures, having no acute perception of their beauties, and, from this circumstance, was indifferent to painting, and under-rated its powers. This trait of character having been published by a man of letters, of unimpeached veracity, who, in his own phrase," had the honour and happiness of his (Dr. J.'s) friendship for upwards of twenty years," it has been received with all the weight of an undisputed truth, corroborated by relative evidence. The opinion of Dr. Johnson, on almost every subject, was, and is, justly held to be of the highest authority, and his known distaste for painting was not calculated to raise that art in the public esteem, or to abate the anticontemporarian and anti-British prejudices against modern art, which were nearly at their height in his time:

In the years 1824 and 1825, when obtaining materials from the rich fund of Northcote's recollections, for my "State of the Arts in the United Kingdom," I wrote regular notes of his communications, of which I made large use in my “Variæ; important Evidences in favour of British Historical Painting," an octavo of 112 pages, which I published in the latter year. In those conversations, we often spoke of Dr. Johnson, as the friend of Reynolds; and Northcote, with marked emphasis, said, "He (Dr. J.) knew nothing of the arts." I enquired what he meant by "knew nothing?" and he replied, "He (the Doctor) did not like to speak on the subject: he never introduced it in my hearing; and whenever it was introduced by others, he remained silent, or, if he spoke of any particular picture, or painting in general, he was wrong in his judgment." This is much to the same effect as Boswell's declaration, that his illustrious friend "had no taste for painting." But it appeared to me, that Northcote's self-love and professional pride had taken offence at what he considered an undue estimate of his art, by one

whom he, otherwise, looked up to and venerated as the most learned character and greatest mind of the age. He thought, and perhaps justly, that if the Author of The Rambler had a due perception of the beauties of historical and poetical painting, and of the moral instruction which they convey, and had employed his great powers to awaken the public to a sense of their excellence ; the British arts would have been greatly benefited. In this I agreed with him. And he seemed to think, that the known indifference of so eminent an authority, had a considerable tendency to keep the public apathy in countenance. I enquired of him if he had heard a current story, that Dr. Johnson once said, "if a collection of paintings were before him, with their faces turned to the wall, he would not be at the trouble of turning them to look at them ?" He said, he had heard it often, but could not say whether it was true or not. There may be some exaggeration in this report, and, after all, it may be destitute of foundation. The important point to which I call attention, is the main fact, that, notwithstanding his wonderful extent of mind and literary pre-eminence, Dr. Johnson had but a slight or inferior opinion of the powers of historical painting, the highest class of the art.

Boswell tells the following story: "When I informed him (Dr. J.) that painting was so far inferior to poetry, that the story, or even emblem, which it communicates must be known, and mentioned, as a natural and laughable instance of this, that a little Miss, on seeing a picture of Justice with the scales, had exclaimed, see, there's a woman selling sweetmeats,' he (Dr. J.) replied,—' Painting, Sir, can illustrate, but not inform."" Boswell here introduces himself as giving, not receiving, information; a character very unusual with him, when conversing with his illustrious friend: but, probably, he ventured to take that liberty, on the subject, it being one which, from long intimacy, he well knew the Doctor had little studied. That a child, who probably had sweetmeats weighed to her, should, on seeing the scales in the picture, mistake an allegorical or emblematical figure of Justice for a woman selling those dainties, is no way surprising; but that Boswell should cite this solitary instance of a puerile mistake as an argument to prove the inferiority of painting to poetry, is somewhat extraordinary. The