( 155 ) lency may be as certain a proof of to a good judge of that, and proportionably to one that is lefs advanced in that branch of fcience. The general confent of connoiffeurs is what I believe will be allowed to be fufficient to conflitute a picture, or a drawing to be a guide in this cafe. Many masters have fomething fo remarkable, and peculiar that their manner in general is foon known, and the best in these kinds fufficiently appear to be genuine fo that a young connoiffeur can be in no doubt concerning them. Now though fome masters differ exceedingly from themselves, yet in all there is fomething of the fame man; as in all the ftages of our lives there is a general resemblance; something of the fame traits are seen in our old faces as we had in our youth; when we have fixed a few of the works of the mafters as genuine, thefe will direct us in the discovery of others, with greater or lefs degrees of probability as the fimilitude betwixt them, and thofe already allowed to be genuine happens to be. An idea of the moft confiderable mafters who have had a great. variety in them may be foon gotten as to their most common manner, and general character, which by feeing pictures, and drawings, with care, and obfervation will be improved, and enlarged perpetually. And there are fome masters who when you have seen two or three of their works will be known again eafily, having had but very little variety in the manners, or fomething fo peculiar throughout as to difcover them immediately. As for obfcure mafters, or thofe whofe works are little known it: is impoffible to have any juft idea of them, and confequently to know to whom to attribute a work of their hands when we happen to meet with them. When we are at a lofs, and know not to what hand to attribute a picture, or drawing it is of use to confider of what age, and what school it probably probably is; this will reduce the enquiry into a narrow compass, and oftentimes lead us to the mafter we are feeking for. So that befides the hiftory of the particular masters, which (as has been seen already) is neceffary to be known by every one that would be connoiffeurs in hands; the general one of the art, and the characters of the several fchools is fo too. Of the firft I have occafionally given fome few touches throughout this, and my former book; of the other I fhall make light sketches in the fecond part of this, referring you for the whole to the accounts at large in the authors who have profeffedly treated on thofe fubjects. He that would be a good connoiffeur in hands muft know how to diftinguish clearly, and readily, not only betwixt one thing, and another, but when two different things nearly refemble, for this he will very often have occafion to do, as it is eafy to obferve by what has been faid already. But I fhall have a further occafion to enlarge on this particular. Lafly, To attain that branch of fcience of which I have been treating a particular application to that very thing is requifite. A man may be a good painter, and a good connoiffeur as to the merit of a picture, or drawing, and may have feen all the fine ones in the world, and not know any thing of this matter; it is a thing entirely diftinct from all thefe qualifications, and requires a turn of thought accordingly. Of ORIGINALS and COPIES. ALL that is done in picture is done by invention; or from the life; or from another picture; or laftly it is a compofition of one, or more of these. The The term picture I here underftand at large as fignifying a painting, drawing, graving, &c. Perhaps nothing that is done is properly, and ftriatly invention, but derived from fomething already feen, though fometimes compounded, and jumbled into forms which nature never produced: thefe images laid up in our minds are the patterns by which we work when we do what is faid to be done by invention; juft as when we follow nature before our eyes, the only difference being that in the latter cafe thefe ideas are fresh taken in, and immediately made ufe of, in the other the y have been repofited there, and are lefs clear, and lively. So that is faid to be done by the life which is done the thing intended to be reprefented being fet before us, though we neither follow it intirely, nor intend fo to do, but add or retrench by the help of preconceived ideas of a beauty, and perfection we imagine nature is capable of, though it is rarely, or never found. We fay a picture is done by the life as well when the object reprefented is a thing inanimate, as when it is an animal; and the work of art, as well as nature: but then for diftin&tion the term ftill-life is made ufe of as occafion requires. A copy is the repetition of a work already done when the artist. endeavours to follow that; as he that works by invention, or the life endeavouring to copy nature, feen, or conceived makes an original. Thus not only that is an original Painting that is done by invention, or the life immediately; but that is fo too which is done by a drawing or fketch fo done; that drawing, or sketch not being ultimately intended to be followed but used only as a help towards the better imitation of nature, whether prefent, or absent. And though this drawing, or sketch is thus ufed by another hand. than that by which it is made, what is fo done cannot be faid to be a copy the thought indeed is partly borrowed, but the work is original. For the fame reafon if a picture be made after another, and afterwards gone over by invention, or the life, not following that, but endeavouring to improve upon it, it thus becomes an original. But if a picture, or drawing be copied, and the manner of handling be imitated, though with fome liberty fo as not to follow every ftroke, and touch it ceases not to be a copy; as that is truly a translation where the fenfe is kept though it be not exactly literal. If a larger picture be copied though in little, and what was done in oil is imitated with water colours, or crayons, that first picture being only endeavoured to be followed as clofe as poffible with those materials, and in thofe dimenfions, this is as truly a copy as if it were done as large, and in the fame manner as the original. There are fome pictures, and drawings which are neither copies, nor originals, as being partly one and partly the other. If in a hiftory, or large compofition, or even a fingle figure, a face, or more is inferted, copied from what has been done from the life, fuch picture is not intirely original. Neither is that fo, nor intirely copy where the whole thought is taken, but the manner of the copier used as to the colouring and handling. A copy retouched in fome places by invention, or 'the life is of this equivocal kind. I have several drawings firft copied after old masters (Giulio Romano for example,) and then heightened, and endeavoured to be improved by Rubens; fo far as his hand has gone is therefore original, the reft remains pure copy. But when he has thus wrought upon original drawings (of which I have alfo many inftances,) the drawing looses not its first denomination, it is an original still, made by two several mafters. The ideas of better, and worfe are generally attached to the terms original, and copy; and that with good reafon; not only becaufe copies are ufually made by inferior hands; but because though though he that makes the copy is as good, or even a better mafter than he that made the original whatever may happen rarely, and by accident, ordinarily the copy will fall fhort: our hands cannot reach what our minds have conceived; it is God alone whose works answer to his ideas. In making an original our ideas are taken from nature; which the works of art cannot equal: when we copy it is thefe defective works of art we take our ideas from; thofe are the utmost we endeavour to arrive at; and thefe lower ideas too our hands fail of executing perfectly; an original is the echo of the voice of nature, a copy is the echo of that echo. Moreover, though the mafter that copies be equal in general to him whofe work he follows, yet in the particular manner of that master he is to imitate he may not: Van Dyck (for example) might have as fine a pencil as Correggio; Parmeggiano might handle a pen, or chalk as well as Rafaelle; but Van Dyck was not fo excellent in the manner of Correggio, nor Parmeggiano in that of Rafaelle as they themfelves were: laftly, in making an original we have a vaft latitude as to the handling, colouring, drawing, expreffion, &c. in copying we are confined; confequently a copy cannot have the freedom, and fpirit of an original; fo that though he that made the original copies his own work it cannot be expected it fhould be as well. But though it be generally true that a copy is inferior to an original, it may fo happen that it may be better; as when the copy is done by a much better hand; an excellent mafter can no more fink down. to the badnefs of fome works than the author of fuch can rife to the other's excellence. A copy of a very good picture is preferable to an indifferent original; for there the invention is feen almost intire, and a great deal of the expreffion, and difpofition, and many times good hints of the colouring, drawing, and other qualities. An indifferent original has nothing that is excellent, nothing that touches, which fuch a copy I am speaking of has, and that in proportion to its goodness as a copy. |