PREFACE.

If the number of books which we possess on the Fine Arts is to be taken as the measure of our knowledge or our taste for painting and sculpture, the standard, as compared with that of other countries, must be admitted to be low; but if the theoretic soundness and practical utility of those which have appeared be taken into the account, we need not fear the comparison.

While I am not prepared to maintain that it is impossible to derive pleasure from works of art without possessing some critical knowledge, and agree with Lanzi, that the observation of Plinyde pictore sculptore et fusore judicare nisi artifex non potest must be understood of certain refinements of the art that escape the eye of the most learned critics, yet I think all will admit that the pleasure derived from painting and sculpture is increased by a knowledge of their principles, and especially as regards their province and capacity.

Reynolds observes: "To discover beauties, or to point out faults, in the works of celebrated masters, and to compare the conduct of one artist with another, is certainly no mean or inconsiderable part of criticism; but this is still no more than to know the art through the artist. This test of investigation must have two capital defects-it must be narrow, and it must be uncertain. To enlarge the boundaries of the art of painting, as well as to fix its principles, it will be necessary that that art and those principles should be considered in their correspondence with the principles of the other arts, which, like this, address themselves primarily and principally to the imagination. When those connected and kindred principles are brought together to be compared, another comparison will grow out of this; that is, the comparison of them all with those of human nature, from whence arts derive the materials upon which they are to produce effects. This, as it is the highest style of criticism, is at the same time the soundest."

A general notion seems to have prevailed, in this country at least, that speculation and action are almost inconsistent, and that the sine quà non for an artist is incessant practice. Although it must be admitted that if the artist is to select between practice and theory, there can be no doubt

as to which is best; yet it must also be admitted that this examination of the general principles relating to the Fine Arts must be beneficial even to artists. Reynolds observes: "That practice that is tolerable in its way is not totally blind; an imperceptible theory which grows out of, accompanies, and directs it, is never wholly wanting to a sedulous practice: but this goes but a little way with the painter merely, and is utterly inexplicable to others." This would seem at least as good a reason for teaching general readers the elements of criticism in the Fine Arts as for teaching the principles of ethics, or any other such branch of knowledge, which from time to time engages the attention of civilised nations, and surely must advance and assist the artist in his practice. There is a prevalent, though erroneous idea, that books relating to the theory of art are more likely to do harm than good to the artist. I shall again fortify my own view by that of Reynolds, who says, "By whatever studies criticism may gain ground, we need be under no apprehension that invention will ever be annihilated or subdued, or intellectual energy brought utterly within the restraint of written law. Genius will still have room to expatiate, and keep always at the same distance from narrow comprehension and mechanical perform

ance." It is erroneous to suppose that books on art are peculiar to modern times, and that no treatises appeared till the master-works of modern painting had been produced. In the fifteenth century, the voluminous works of Lorenzo Ghiberti, Leon Battista Alberti, and Leonardo da Vinci, were written, of which the last two have been published. Of works belonging to the same period, which still remain in MS., or which have been lost, there is a further list, by Pietro della Francesca, Francesco di Giorgio, Baldassar Peruzzi, Domenicho Ghirlandajo, and Raphael: Vasari alludes to the treatises of the last two; and to the above many others written in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries might be added. There is also a MS. of Filarete, a sculptor, of the fifteenth century, still preserved in Florence; and as regards technical matters, such as the work of Cennini (which has been published), the list is endless. Many of the writings quoted by Vasari were doubtless quoted by him from historical notices. only; but the works to which we have access are sufficient to show that, both theoretically and practically, written information accompanied the progress of art during its best periods. The same observation holds good with respect to ancient art: and Pliny, like Vasari, appears to have borrowed from writings which were extant in his time.